tv Public Affairs CSPAN March 1, 2013 9:00am-2:00pm EST
saw one to believe everything everybody else has to say when they call in here this morning. what we need to do as voters estoppel voting for all we need to start thinking about term limits. democrats and republicans, if we can't get along with one another, that is just tough. you just need to do the job with the american people. that is what we sing to washington today. as far as the president is concerned, these executive orders -- having everybody that is in congress and the senate come back to the senate and give that order. guest: the only thing i will say is that leadership and going to work is not about liking each other. it is not about having shrinks and dinner.
it is about doing work together. there are plenty of people that you work with and you don't like. that's what we need to do in this congress. speaker boehner and the republicans who control me to say it is not time for a weekend break. it is backed that get us back into the session. host: that was the last call. what happens once congress comes back into session? guest: i am looking forward to hearing about the results of the meeting at the white house today. in my own office, we are facing as well cuts in our legislative branch. i am meeting with my stamp -- staff today to go over reductions in pay and possible furloughs. we are under sequester as well. host: donna edwards.
she serves maryland. thank you for your time. we will hear from randy forbes next. again, with been talking to reporters across the united states to learn how their states will be affected. mike from a public -- location joins us. when it comes to military -- guest: i am sitting here in hampton roads. it is a dark and overcast day. nothing has really changed today. today, i am expecting the maybe which is a huge presence here in hampton roads. you have heard the analogy of comparing sequestration to
rolling downhill instead of falling off a cliff. we will begin to see some impacts in this region within the next month or so once the furloughs go into effect and the navy is forced to cancel contracts. host: not only the contracts themselves but what about residual businesses? how much are they depending on the military? guest: something i want to put in context, sequestration -- everyone said it is a bad idea to do it this way. what people might not realize is there are communities such as hampton roads, virginia, that are going to bear the brunt of this. nearly half of its economy is dependent on defense spending. ship building with the navy. we have been buffered from the recession but some of that pain is going to come home now as these cuts come down. you're looking at 40,000 to
affect the one day a week furlough for 22 weeks at least for this year. the sequester is a one-to punch. if congress fails to passing a budget by the end of this month, the navy will begin canceling its ship maintenance contract, which is huge. economists estimate that could result about 30,000 to 40,000 jobs lost in this region alone. people are taking this very seriously. i am sure randy forbes will repeat that. host: mike is with the virginian pilot. they have been following what happens with it comes to sequestration. there is their website, pilot online.com.
thanks for your time. representative randy forbes is joining us. welcome. guest: thank you for having us. host: when it comes to the military, how was your state affected? guest: we are impacted more than anyone else. we contribute a lot to the national defense of the country. it is important we are member is not just a single day. it is not not just sequestration. these impacts come and began several years ago. we start having enormous cuts to national defense. we have artie cut out -- already cut out five at $87 billion. these are just starting to wash up on the country now. when you add sequestration on top of that, which would be more cuts, it is meant be huge economically but also from the start -- security of the country. host: what programs are
affected? guest: you can't just say today. we will mitigate a lot of these next week. as mike mentioned, it is the lack of the budget. we will have a continued resolution on the floor. the house has gone home and the senate has gone home. the chairman and subcommittee chairmen of the 70s, we are here today and continuing to work to make sure he -- we get a resolution. we need to mitigate most of these harsh impacts that i think will be passed by the house and senate in the next few weeks. coming back to your question, it is not just one program. before we got to sequestration with the cuts we have taken, in 2007, the maybe -- the navy was able to meet 90% of the requirements across the globe. last year, we only met 51%. the air force will testify they have a declining state of revenue since 2003, yet we had
billions of cuts to the air force. the army was already beginning to cut 80,000 people out of the military base on cuts. it is the compilation is going to hit the country hard. host: why not look at programs to see if they are necessary? guest: a great question. here is what is happening to our military. we are literally disarming -- one of these cuts, fair question to say do we have waste at the pentagon. we do. all these cuts get the muscle. we also have to look at our procurement costs -- process. it used to be that a short time ago, we could have four people approve the forms. literally today, it takes 40 different approvals from different groups before you can have a platform. the military will tell you, that expense the cost in a
wrestling but also the time to deliver. sometimes are taking 20 years. our subcommittee is launching an effort. we're going to change this and look at the procurement process to do -- try to revitalize the military. host: this they meant from the washington post. congress and the president have chosen not to govern. each side has concluded to let the sequester proceed and then they blame game. guest: there is a lot of truth to that. there is too much bravado from the white house and congress. you have people talking at each other and not to each other. sometimes you have to go back and say -- when the president proposed sequestration and many members voted for it. i did not. i said then over a year ago, i said this is where we are going to be today. for the last year, i've been going around the country trying to alert people that this was
coming if we did not change this around. here in washington, people that supported sequestration that voted for it, is like pointing a gun at your foot and pulling the trigger and letting everyone else because you shot yourself in the foot. that's what we're seeing in washington today. host: you can call or tweet us as well. the numbers are on your screen. host: first up is a middletown, new jersey. caller: good morning, gentlemen. congressman forbes, one thing people have not been talking much about is that it is -- the deficit has been declining over the years. i think the problem is, there is a huge difference between
spending and investing. what we have been doing is a whole lot of unnecessary spending. a large part of it is in our revenue. it exhausts our revenue. loopholes account for 1.3 tri llion of the money that could be lowering our deficit. that is all tax cuts -- they should be cut because a lot do help people that need help the most, the middle class. all of the working class. bank of america to be paying zero in taxes after we have bailed them out, it just does not make any sense for someone to take a right off -- write- off on their yacht is not make any sense. we're still stuck on this idea of trickle-down theory. it is not ever work. guest: you raised a lot of good
points. one of the key things, is great to say i am just going to hate thank america and that is a problem or i'm going to hate this person. the reality is for the last four years, with that over a trillion dollars of deficit. even the president came out through his chairman of the joint chiefs of staff to city number one security problem in the united states was our debt. i think everybody recognizes we have to do something about that. the question is what. when you look at the fact of where we are right now with the loopholes that you're talking about, it always sounds great until you do the math and put it on paper. to get to where you want on tax reform, notice they say loopholes. then they say tax reform and deductions. some of those deductions were given so you could do exactly what you said, so we can
encourage businesses to invest in the country. we have to make a business decision. do it wanted to stop the investment? to get to the dollars they need, there are two huge deductions they went to take out the table -- they will have to take off the table. charitable the elections. that is not make sense. the second is the mortgage interest the elections. let me give you this last perspective. even with sequestration, if it takes place, the white house will have billions more to spend last year than they did this year. someone should step back and say does it make sense if we have more money to spend this year than last year, that we are going to have to shut the country down because of these cuts ? host: linda, or a public in line. caller: -- linda, were public in
line. -- republican. caller: the military -- host: go ahead. caller: can you hear me? host: yes. caller: a lot to be taken out of the budget instead of cutting the military. [indiscernible]guest: sometimes, it is always great buzz word. waste and fraud. the overall dollars don't always add up. when the president came into office, he wanted a very expensive health care bill, he got. he also wanted an expensive
stimulus package. it was billions of dollars. he proposed the suggestion legislation. congress have been able to stop him on one of those, we would not be here today. if you look at that stimulus package, a 25 billion, that is exactly what we cutting honesty position. what we have to do is get a better priority on our spending. if we just cut government travel by half, we save $8 billion. we need to start looking at these things and fast. host: our twitter says -- guest: mike would have a good point of look at this. as i told you at the beginning, it is not just the overall dollars but how we're spending it. what we can't do is the way cuts have been made over the last several years for he we
have substituted strategic analysis for budget analysis. there are two things impacting us. one is the cuts that are coming. it has been arbitrary for the past several years read we made those cuts in some areas that are putting us at risk. second, the procurement process is what mike should be getting it. if we change that process, we are going to change defense spending and mcmorrow efficient. host: businessweek today look at programs where we could see cuts. the first is the strike fighter program. hopefully, it has been restored. guest: one of the difficult things is the f 35 or f 32. we made a mistake in taking the 32 off. years ago, we had an office of net assessment. they did long-term planning. planning where we looked at the
agile adversaries and say what programs are not efficient and what makes our adversaries spend money in place so they can spend and other places. we have gotten out of planning in washington. now things are knee-jerk reactions. we need to do long-term planning. we look at long-term planning, you look at projects like the f 32 and a take on a different light. with the f-22, it kept countries like china having to put their defense dollars internally to defend against their command and control structures inside. now, because we don't have the program, it frees them to put missiles along the coast. that is the kind of planning we need to go back to that we have not done in a while. host: arizona,, independent line. caller: i think the sequester is
going to put our nation at risk. i don't think it is fair. our protection should come first before anything. people died for our freedom. that is just a shame that the president is going this route. i am not blaming democrats or republicans or whatever. i think it is sickening that they would take the risk of our nation being in jeopardy. with: i couldn't agree you more about two things. the blame game. you have to call the facts where they are. it have to make your own its relation of who you think is at fault. secondly, putting the country at risk. when sequestration was proposed, i voted against it. immediately after it was passed, i set out across the country because no one knew the term.
we had a campaign called defending our defenders. we went across the country trying to tell people from a national point of view where we would be today. unfortunately, we were not able to stop that. we are not giving up just because the deadline is today. i encourage the subcommittee chairman for the armed services committee to stay here. we are rolling up our sleeves. we're going to do we can next week. we'll have legislation that will severely mitigate some of these harsh things that is going to take place. it was a bad idea, bad program and a bad result in a failure in leadership for everybody to allow that to happen. host: it's where measures -- a twitter message says -- guest: when you have the chairman of the joint juice the staff, someone would knowledge as he was speaking for the president at the role of the
president and began to tell the country that the number one national security problem we had was the debt of the country. you cannot spend trillions of dollars on a health-care bill, about the same as a stimulus and not expect -- to have problems. people are saying to washington, you have got to do what we do at home. you can't spend more money than you make. i think most economists are recognizing we can't continue to sustain the assassination. host: jim from virginia, independent line. caller: good morning. . am in my 50's i just moved into the second district. i don't know what the effect is going to have on that area. since the 1970's, we have been hearing the same story over and
over again. infrastructure, jobs, waste. none of this is being done. all we hear is people -- is you people talking at each other, not with each other, to each other. calling each other names and everything. you people have to stop this nonsense. all these things are being used to get elected. when you get in office, you are always pointing the finger at somebody else. of course, you're not to blame. i don't know what you're actually doing, but it is an old story. it needs to be done and it needs to be fixed. leaves, please, do something -- please do something and get it done. get in there and work like everybody else.
not the part-time job that it seems to be for you people. guest: i don't think i've called anybody names and i certainly hope that i have not read -- not. i think it is important that we speak out. i thought very hard on national defense. we have weaknesses. i would rather pointed out now -- point it out now. as far as i was working, there are certain members of the congress that do that. if you look at my subcommittee, i'd share the armed forces subcommittee. i think you will find the most bipartisan subcommittee in the entire congress. i have a good working relationship with not just my counterpart on the democratic side but my friend, mike mcintyre, we work mostly together. we live in a country where we
point fingers at each other and yell and scream. we hear all the talking points. the best we can do is consistently try to peel back the onion and get the facts so we can move the country forward. onre launching an effort our committee to revitalize the military of the united states of america. we're going to ask tough questions but hopefully we can put images on the table. america is to say that is the direction we need to go. host: what does that mean moving forward? guest: i can't speak for the speaker on that. what the speaker is talking about is that we have to be concerned sometimes that we have false trade-offs. an example, the same debate we are having today was taking place in january about raising the tax rate for the country. the president got what he wanted, then we turned around
and in days we spent money on a bill that went for emergency relief -- half of that was for work girl objects that had met -- pork barrel projects. what we have to do as a nation is we have to realize that we need the revenue. the bulldog line in the revenue in. it is not go into priority areas. it goes out in these areas that have little return. again, i come back to the stimulus package which i fought against. that is why we are taking this out of defense. i do not do that under president obama. i did that under president bush to. -- too. i voted against both of the president's packages because they did not work. host: how does the house move forward? guest: again, sit back and say
what are our priorities as a country? the number one priority is the national defense. i have no problem putting all this on the table and having a fair debate about what programs we should have. here is the question we've been asking in washington, how much do we want to spend on defense? no one has been asking the question, what is the risk to the united states if we don't spend these dollars? if we look at the cuts, we are putting huge gaps in missile defense systems. we aren't doing that. if you look at eight years from now, submarines in the pacific, that is something we should see if we want to be there. i have never put anything off the table. i have always said bring me the
analysis and make sure the analysis will work. host: alabama, democrats line. caller: how are you? i was sitting here and watching everything that is going on. we do -- we need to quit doing so much finger-pointing and come together and let's fix it for the american people, not just being the beneficiary of the republican party or the democratic party. there is a lot that can be simplified if we come together and sit down and talk about it. we need to make an educational decision on it. we know we will soon be outnumbered by submarines.
do we really want to have that? guest: that is a great discussion. i wish we could have that debate and discussion. i don't think we should be blaming people or pointing fingers. we need to talk about directions and we need to talk about which policies work and which ones don't. i am not pointing my finger at anybody. they have to tell you about whether it was their idea whether they voted for it or did not. it was a bad policy. whether the president urged it and pushed forward, i voted against it and i fought it. it's coming out that i was right. when when we had the stimulus package, it was not because it was a democratic proposal or republican proposal, it is because you cannot spend billions of dollars of interest and not take it from someplace. i said this because it was a
proposal that was going to cut national defense a normal sleep. that is the analysis -- it will cut defense enormously. caller: good morning. i have a question for congress. host: you're on. go ahead. caller: how long have you been elected for the congress? guest: 2001. caller: when george bush gave the tax cuts and started the wars, where was the budget? did you come on the tv and say we care about the deficit? did it you ask people to cut medicare? where have you been then? i am 62 years old. i have been unemployed for a year.
are you ashamed of yourself? i am not. guest: on the night of the state of the union, a democratic member of our delegation, senator them came -- tim came, we worked together. the president said several times how republicans are trying to cut social security. senator mccain said who is trying to cut social security? nobody is proposing the cut of social security. that is something people love to throughout their and try to create. the same kind of finger-pointing and animosity. at some point, we have to sit back down and say which works and which don't. we need to start saying let's put proposals on the table to see if they work.
host: david from illinois on the republican line. caller: thank you very much. it is puzzling to me that the sequester of $85 billion is such a huge problem. is the think i'm a percent they are talking about. if a person made a thousand dollars a week and made -- and they took a 2.3% cut in pay, that would be $23. i don't understand what is so difficult about that. i think a good faith move by federally elected people would be to take a three percent cut in pay. that would be so beneficial to whoever initiated that. number two, what it comes to revenue, raising taxes on the
rich, trickle-down taxation. you tax the rich and the cost of goods and services go up for everybody on down the line. or the company finds a better place to do business. host: thanks. guest: your principal is right. there are two things that are getting muddled in the messaging. the first one is this, sequestration -- or the cuts coming from it are not that you normal. we looked at the overall budget. the president will have more money to spend this year than he had last year after sequestration. that is one thing for our economy. the big concern to me is that we are putting most of these cuts on the back of a national. if you look at all the cuts, the only place they cut has been national defense.
it is in a huge way, over half $1 trillion. that is the distortion bouncy that i think is wrong. we need to change this priority. host: it's where message says -- -- a twitter message says guest: we have to because only looking at our platform and weapons system. that is where we are always constantly looking at. one of the things we know is this, the world is not getting safer. it is getting more dangerous. the question is, what does it take to defend the country? host: will sequestration directly affect your office? guest: yes. we will have the same cuts across the board. host: how do you account for that?
guest: we have already factored that in. we factored these cuts in over a year ago. we've already transitioned to that by cutting costs. host: randy forbes is the congressman for virginia. he is a member of the armed services committee to represent the commonwealth of virginia. thank you. guest: thank you for having me. host: we have been talking to reporters across the united states of how sequestration affects state. mr. dunham, thanks for joining us. guest: you are welcome. host: give us a birds eye view of how texas will be affected going for. guest: texas will be hit across the board. border security and border patrol. when you for low 10% of employees, it is not overstating it to say it would have an
impact on lines at the border, furlough. border security and further risks. where texas probably is hit is proportionately as the military. as they converse man was saying -- as the congress man was saying, virginia, number one, texas, number two. it will have a great impact. some contractors are warning of layoffs. several projects are built and -- in texas. direct impact with the air force and military and army civilian employees -- the basis -- bases will lose construction. host: has governor perry weighed in? guest: he has stayed out of
this debate entirely. the congressional delegation have weighed in. governor perry just talked about dysfunction in washington. he has not gotten engaged and debating the impact. host: social programs or education, do they see an impact? guest: yes. the total impact will depend on how serious the cuts are nationwide. texas was hit more because you have a higher rate of uninsured and high property -- poverty rate. you have disproportionate social safety net funding. things like financial aid for low income college students will does purportedly hit texas. in the end, it will be the same as the rest of the country, just a. when it comes to the military and the border, is greater in
texas. host: what reaction will today bring? guest: i have talked to them. it is a lot of finger-pointing. democrats are saying the republican's are not serious. they are saving of not negotiated in good faith. republicans think it is a good idea to cut spending. most of them think it is a win- win for them. they are attacking the president for slashing defense. host: with the houston chronicle, he is there bureau chief. mr. dunham, thanks for your time. guest: you're welcome. host: for there many amount of our time, we will continue with calls. the sequester has come march 1. sometime, the president will sign the sequester.
various agencies will plan accordingly and go forward, whether trimming programs or furloughing employees. chances are, you may want to comment. here is your chance to do so. if you want to give us a call, here are the numbers -- host: you can send us a tweet at http://twitter.com/cspanwj and you can also send us a comment on facebook. detroit, this is paul on the democrat line. caller: hello. our problem is not sequestration. our problem is not spending. our problem is the republican party continuing to look out for the special interests.
everybody needs to pay their fair share. it is not right that the budget be balanced -- rarely mentioned for the middle class. the rich need to do their fair share as well. our problem is not spending. they don't cry about the spending until the democrats get in office. i find that amazing. it is amazing to me how people can be duped by the were public and party and vote against their own interests. host: why do you think the problem is not spending? caller: why was it not complained about during the bush years when we gained two big
tax breaks to the wealthiest people in america and started two wars? host: there were criticisms, but go ahead. caller: i am just amazed why they can't sit down and come up with a balanced budget. host: does balance mean cuts and tax increases together? caller: of course. cuts where they are necessary. host: such as? caller: wasteful spending for the military. i heard someone earlier speak in terms of how much it costs the military -- host: norman oklahoma, republican line. caller: i just want to give a
couple of that -- ideas of where they can cut. people that are working and old teeple -- old people, somehow they don't qualify for food stamps. they need to take the junk food out of food stamps and drug test. they need to put a cap on how many kids people can have. we cannot afford to hardly raise our own kids much less pay for somebody else's. they need to cap the earned income tax credit at $1000. no one deserves to get $5,000 or $6,000 just because they have too many kids. illegal immigrants, they kept calling and saying they could not take care of their four or five kids. how are they having 45 kids? --
four or five kids? the taxpayers may be paying for that. they need to have a debit card for education. host: that was norman, oklahoma. a twitter message says -- host: taking a look at the federal reserve, the topic was the death of the united states. it also felt with issues of the sequester -- look at the debt of the united states. here is that exchange. [video clip]>> $5 trillion over
10 years, i see the lights going off and sirens are blaring. they can on my counter, don't worry about trillions of dollars. i listen to what you are saying and i think you are giving a cover to a set of policies that are not responsible. we are all going to pay the price for the irresponsibility. instead of encouraging was possibility, you say listen, to cut two percent, it is going to have a great impact on our economy. that is not make sense to me. >> i think most economists would say this is going to cost a lot of jobs in the short run. you can achieve the same results with long-term progress. >> on that point, how many jobs are lost because millions go to pottery classes or free cell phones? we pay billions of dollars to
see how long shrimp can run on a treadmill. we pay for travel expenses for the watermelon queen in alabama. there is fat in the budget. i think every american look at how we spend our money and say i can cut two percent of my family budget. you come in and tell us, i agree with the president, it is catastrophic if you cut two percent. mass mayhem in our economy. i find that unbelievable. >> the sequester is not designed to cut across the board. >> are you telling us if we cut $85 billion in a more reflective way in the spending that is referenced, you would support it and it is a good idea? >> it will be better.
host: that exchange taking place earlier this week. go to our website. we have a variety of topics in our video library. whether it be through this program or other events taking place around the washington. that website is www.c-span.org. $109 billion dollars in cuts. defense scratch gary is about $38 billion -- some of the information from bloomberg government, that takes place today. the white house will be the site of a meeting between president obama and group -- congressional meters -- meetings. the topics will be the sequester.
if anything will come about it, it will take place today. we will talk to mary in washington. democrats line. caller: hello. i'm calling about the sequester. they need to go back to the roosevelt days. i am 82 years old and my mother had five children. all five of us went to school and worked in the government and retired. what you need to do, you need to go back to the service that has the programs for the service but they had years ago -- like they had years ago. all of these programs, you need to cut them out completely. just have a big programs that help the people until they can get on their feet. they can go to school and learn
just like we did. we did not have the kind of money like you have now. what you have to do is cut everything and half -- in half. food is high and everything is too high, too high. you need to cut everything and half. host: cut everything -- caller: cut everything in half. host: entitlements as well? caller: everything, cut it in half. social security is already cut. i had a husband that paid into social security for years read they do not give me a penny. what are they doing with all that money? host: coming what you did in government. -- tell me what you getting government. caller: i worked in higher education.
they had people from different states and they gave them money. what i had to do, if we did not pass whatever they asked for, they had to call me and say why. this went on from years. host: is there a perception of a government worker? caller: the private sector, they pay them more money than the government workers. they need to take that part out of the private sector -- to the private sector out completely and just make it a government program. the government was a help to all us five kids. we all worked and we all retired. host: you and your siblings work for the government? that is right, two boys and two girls. host: what jobs did you hold,
you and your siblings? caller: we all did that type of work for programs. i worked in the education department. my sister -- different departments. my brother worked for the district government. he was a supervisor. keep the government jobs. host: do you think government is too big as far as employees? caller: yes, they have too many small programs. make it into one big program instead of having a small program here and saw program there. -- small program there. keep one program in line and you will know exactly what you have. host: that is mary in washington. thank you. we go to floyd and wisconsin. republican line. caller: i think we ought to raise taxes on all the
democrats that want the sequester to go through and let them pay the bill. if they don't want it, why should we pay? host: what about the argument that taxes should be raised? if that is the case, what should be cut? caller: all government programs should be cut. the congressman, they cannot walk up there without a cane and their hands. they have been in there too long. we ought to cut their pay or we need to go to a program where you're out after 10 years. then, these people will be up there worrying about the poor people or rich people all the time. they will have to do it and work hard. host: mesquite, texas. she is on our independent line. caller: they are talking about
all these cuts. we have a company that overcharged our government. we had an investigation. then we trust them to go to do work in iraq and for msdn -- and afghanistan. they are charging money and they don't know anything about this. it is crazy. they don't want to talk about that. this healthcare thing, the part b perception drug program has cost the government. they never putting -- but a -- put a cap on this. i just don't understand.
they are aware of how they have robbed us and they don't want to do anything about it. host: a twitter message says -- napa, california. democrat line. caller: i'm calling about the first caller. where are the cuts to the military? they have been against social security since the day it was invented. they swore to get rid of it. it is ridiculous.
we need these programs to take care of the poor grades you can't kick them to the street. host: tell me about your thinking of what you highlighted the farm bill. caller: i have friends that get paid to do nothing to own the land. how about cuts to that? they swore that it would not drive the cost of food. look at the price of corn. republicans run most of the farms, the corporations. the poor people are not growing farms. host: what are your thoughts on the day the sequester takes place? caller: another ploy to scare the american people to do cuts they don't need to do, just like the last ones. they won't get out of it. host: some of our republican scholar -- callers say --
caller: it takes two to tango. here's my biggest thing about your public and party, i can't find any bill they have honored in the last 75 years that did anything to help the working class people, like the family leave act or any kind of medicare, anything. they have fought it for the last 89 years. we need to look at it from another angle. host: a look at the weekly -- wikileaks story.
host: the rest of the story is visible -- is available at the "new york times." caller: it seems i am a republican. the person who just got off the phone was a democrat. i listened to him and that there is no difference. they forgot all about the people. the declaration of independence is a pupil's most important document, not the constitution. the declaration tells the federal government what the job is. that is a simple job. there is only one -- life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness. liberty was taken from the declaration to the constitution -- they call liberty freedom, it is not. liberty is a life and not under the control of a corrupt government. they forgot all about the people. i'm not happy and i don't feel safe. they let money go away. medicare, they could turn it over to the states and lose a lot -- let each state handle its own. it would take a lot more people -- they don't do nothing for the people. they are arguing and saying they're arguing about the sequester and they let everything come down to the final moment. then they do this to us. it seems like the most important thing to the federal government
now is democrats winning or republicans winning. they don't care nothing about the people. i will hang up and see if there are any comments. thank you. host: churchill, tennessee. this is from maryland, independent line. caller: i have some places where the government can come -- can cut. a transportation subsidy, where you use that in order to take the train to work every morning. from my understanding -- i don't take the train. i don't use the subsidy. when i did, it was $130 every two months.
it is probably in the 200 and now. that is a lot very -- that is a lot for an employee who takes the train. there are federal buildings that are sitting empty that the government is paying for. 80% of the federal government can work from home. all these jobs can be done from home and that would save on lighting to power the building, the rent for all these buildings as far as infrastructure goes. he would not have so much commuting, going across the bridge is and roads. there are a lot of things that could be -- smart cuts that can be made. congress and the president fail
to look at without damaging people's livelihood. people don't sit down and they don't try to think about these things and then -- and and and tell it to manner. -- an intelligent manner. host: there is a post with bob woodward over the president's role is to graduation. -- and sequestration. host: it is the democrats taking shots at woodward.
new york, thanks for holding on. republican line. caller: good morning. i would like to say this is an incredible time for the united states of america. we as a country have never made strong decisions. this is a decision that has to be made, which is great because now the next step is for congress to make the changes that have to be done. the united states has always been a very liberal country that we want everything for everybody. this is a great time for the united states. host: this is the "usa today" writes up --
host: the deputy defense secretary told congress that the pentagon would cancel 25 ships and aircraft starting today. our last call, kentucky, democrats line. are you there? caller: yes, i am. i am calling in regards to the republican stance when president obama first took office. why are people disregarding him as president? host: that leads up to what we
are talking about today. caller: right. they know exactly what is going on. why they chose to leave office at this article time -- critical time when there is something that can be done. host: host: we appreciate all the participation this morning. we will see you tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. eastern time. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]
>> president obama is scheduled to meet with the top leaders in the house in the senate to talk about the automatic spending cuts. those cuts are expected to go into effect by the end of the day to day. meeting with the replies -- meeting with the present will be mcconnell, john boehner, harry reid, and house democratic leader nancy pelosi. we have a camera set up outside the white house in case anyone from that meeting comes out to speak with reporters. we will bring that to you should happen. the house armed services committee top republicans are all agree to talk about the impact of the budget cuts to defense. we are planning to have that live at 10:30.
>> apologize, we will bring that reported to you later. the army chief of staff says a fight over the budget is having a severe impact on our training. he said this morning the army is experiencing an $18 billion shortfall. he spoke this morning on cbs news and we will hear from the house armed services committee members at 10:00 eastern. in the meantime, a look at his comments on tuesday. >> this is a very complex issue. i have had the opportunity over the last several years to command at every level in combat, division court and
theater level. i know what it takes to ensure that our sons and daughters are prepared for war. know what it takes to grow leaders and our army. i know what is required to send soldiers into combat. i have seen firsthand the consequences when they are sent unprepared. i have -- i began my career in the 1970's in a hollow army and i will not end my career in a hollow army. every day, you dance across the globe remind us that we live in the most unpredictable and dynamic security landscape that i have experienced in my career. on light post-conflict drawdowns in the past, we do not see any peace and stability and a dividend of our future. instead, the army has almost 60,000 people deployed in afghanistan and another 22,000 deployed in other places with in the middle east, kosovo and other places and more than
91,000 stationed across the globe. it is these very soldiers who suffer the most under these budgetary cuts. we simply do not know when we will be asked to deploy soldiers to fight again but history is very clear on this subject -- we will ask them to deploy. our men and women again will ask to provide security for this nation when it is at risk. we owe it to them and the american people to insure that our soldiers are ready and when we ask them to respond to the next war for the next crisis, the next natural disaster, that is our charge together to ensure they are ready to respond. in my opinion, the greatest threat to our national security is the fiscal uncertainty resulting from the lack of predictability in our budget cycle over the last several years. in addition to the $170 billion
in cuts to the army levied by the budget control act of 2011, the combination of the continuing resolution, a short fall in overseas contingency operations funds for afghanistan and the sequestered in fiscal year 2013 has resulted in an $18 billion shortfall to the army's operation and maintenance accounts. as well as an additional $6 billion cut to all other programs. all of this will come in the last seven months of this year. our top priority is to insure that our forces in afghanistan and korea have the resources required to execute their missions. these cuts will have grave consequences and immediate impact on the readiness of our remaining forces. we will curtail training for 80% of our forces. this will in due shortfalls across critical specialties including aviation, intelligence, engineering, and their ability to recruit new soldier's into the army. sequestration will impact our
ability to provide properly trained soldiers in afghanistan in 2014. it will have significant near and long term impact on u.s. special operations command. and their ability to support special operations. we have directed an immediate army hiring freeze and we have terminated an estimated 3100 term employees. we will furlough 21,000 civilians for up to 22 days. we supplied 22,000 employees that represent 60% of the army work force at medical treatment facility, three times that of our sister services. the civilian furlough will mean an hour soldiers will experience degraded access to medical care. we will cancel third and fourth quarter depot maintenance.
there will be a significant delay in equipment for divisions and an estimated $3.36 million impact. if sequestration is implemented, over 10,000 employees could be affected next year. civilian furloughs, 75% reduction on base funding and elimination of contract will strain our ability to protect our army family programs. it sequestration is implemented, we will be forced to reduce funding for our schools, day care centers, family assistance and community service programs, family and substance abuse counselors and tuition assistance for our soldiers. for 2014 and beyond, sequestration will result in a loss of at least an additional 100,000 personnel soldiers who are active army, the army national guard, and the u.s. reserve. combined with previous cuts that already been approved, this will
result in total reduction of at least wanted 89,000 personnel from the army. it will probably end up being higher than that, closer to 200,000. a reduction of 40% of the army's strength will a quake -- will equate to a reduction in combat teams in base installation infrastructure. sequestration will result in delays to everyone of our 10 modernize -- major modernization programs. since 2008, the total army budget will have been reduced by over 45%. sequestration would be greater than 50%. that is a number greater following any war we have been all but since world war two. in my opinion, sequestration is not in the best interest of our national security. it will place an unreasonable burden on the shoulders of our soldiers and civilians. will not be able to execute 2012
strategic guidance and we are compromising the future readiness of the joint force, the army, and their ability to provide for the security of our nation today. i understand the seriousness of our country's fiscal situation. we will continue to do our part but we simply cannot take the readiness of our force for granted if we do not have the resources to train and equip the force, our soldiers, our young men and women are the ones who will pay the price potentially with their lives. it is our responsibility and as the department of defense and congress to ensure that we never send soldiers into harm's way that not trained, equipped, well-led and ready for any contingency to include war. we must come up with a better solution. i will just add that over the last week, we have done a detailed analysis of how we would implement the $18 billion shortfall in 2013 which includes $6 billion in continuing resolution -- 5-$7
billion in oco shortfalls for afghanistan and $6 billion for sequestration. all those things i just mentioned, we're still $4 billion short to pay the bill. there will be more things we will have to do that we are trying to figure out. this is very serious and ask your assistance in helping us. any help to include the flexibility that would help us eliminate the $6 billion shortfall would be significant for the army. it would solve 1/3 of the problem we have today. thank you very much for allowing me to testify >> thank you very much. i want you to know this committee -- we are pushing hard to try to break through some of the walls we have to break through because we agree and we understand what you are telling us.
one of the purposes of this hearing is to make the point as often as we can for those higher appointees who can pay attention to what you are telling us that what we are hearing from you. thank you very much, sir. admiral greener, we would love to hear your view from the chief of naval operations. >> good morning, distinguished members of the committee, i want to package for the opportunity to testify and to have a discussion with you today. when i last appeared before you, i declared there were too important qualities of our never forces -- we will operate for the at the maritime crossroads of the world. we will be where it matters and we will be ready when it matters. this remains our mandate. the navy and marine corps are uniquely qualified to respond immediately to crises to assure
allies and build partnerships and to deter aggression. these qualities and their values are at risk by the fiscal uncertainty we now face. our near-term concern is that -- is degraded current readiness caused by a combination of sequestration and the lack of an appropriations bill and fiscal year 2013. this is not just a 2013 phenomenon. without congressional action, it will have an irreversible and debilitating impact on our navy 's readiness for the rest of the decade. in the near term, will not be able to respond and the way the nation as expected and depended on. we should make that decision consciously and deliberately. three symbolic but not all inclusive examples of this near- term impact are the delays of the deployment of the carrier strike a group harry truman. there is the delay in the overhaul of the carrier abraham
lincoln and the delay in the initial construction of the carrier john f. kennedy. these are just carriers. it impacts ops, maintenance, construction read off the bat. these represent the kinds of decisions will have to make over the coming weeks. it will not come without significant consequences to our people, the defense industry, and to the local economies. the $8.6 billion shortfall that confronts us in our operations and made into account has compelled us to cancel ship and aircraft maintenance, reduce operations, curtail training for forces that will soon deploy, and notify 100 city -- 100,000 employees of a furlough. this will enable funds for continued operation of forces that are currently forward deployed but we will have inadequate surge capacity at the appropriate readiness level where it matters and when it matters. we need an appropriations bill for this fiscal year that will allow the department to
distribute resources in a deliberate manner. alternatively, if a year-long continuing resolution is inevitable or the result, we definitely will have the means to realign funds across our program to provide funding for the most critical operations. the light and reallocation of resources result in irreversible actions such as ships and aircraft maintenance and training cancellations. we have lost $600 million in february because of irreversible opportunities and for the month of march, if we don't have that opportunity to reallocate funds, it will be another $1.2 billion and it continues to grow as we go through the summer. i know this committee is dedicated to men and women of our military and their families but our folks are stressed by the uncertainty about their jobs, their operational schedules, and, more importantly, their future. i appreciate the opportunity to
testify and have a discussion on their behalf and i am proud to represent these dedicated people and their sacrifices. thank you in advance for your efforts in this and that of this body to try to avert this readiness crisis. >> you so very much for a very important statement. we have met with you off and on on that very issue of having been able assets and what all the other services really need. i am anxious to hear from the marine corps, sir. >> thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the impact of continuing resolution and sequestration on your marine corps. as i said here, there are five of us and we represent over 180 years of service to our nation and defense of our nation.
we take that responsibility seriously as you do in your committee. as a member of the joint chiefs of staff, sequestration by its magnitude, its timing, and its methodology will have a devastating impact on our nation's retinas both short-term and long-term. combined with the effects of the existing continuing resolution, sequestration creates unacceptable levels of risk in four main areas -- first, risk to our national strategy. second, restore our forces. third, risk to our people and lastly, risk to the united states of america. regarding risk to our national strategy -- maintaining a sound international economic system and they just international order are the foundations of our nation's defense and strategic guidance. the effects of disruption to this global order can be seen in a volatile energy prices, flood and global markets, unacceptable
sovereign behavior, and economic decline. failing to provide leadership in the collective security of this global order, will have significant economic consequences for the people of america. if fiscally driven latin american leadership and for the engagement will create a void in which old threats will be left unaddressed and new security challenges will no doubt find room to grow. there should be no misunderstanding -- the combined effects of continuing resolution and sequestration will have a deleterious effect on the stability of global order. the perceptions of our enemies and the confidence of our allies. restoration viewed solely as a budget issue would be a grave mistake. in fact, it would border irresponsibility. our collective actions in the next few months will be scrutinized on a global stage where even the perception of disruption of our nation's
willingness to protect its global interests can and will have strategic consequences. regarding risk to our forces -- a linkage between resources and readiness is immediate and visible. the scale and agnostic implementation of sequestration will have devastating impact on readiness. sequestration will leave ships in port, aircraft grounded for want of necessary maintenance and flight hours, modernization programs canceled, and units only partially trained after 12 long years of combat. will be left unattended. because of our special role as america's crisis response force, marines place a high premium on readiness. i have done everything within my authority to preserve the tenets of a ready in court. i will continue to do so. i have kept the point units already but only by stripping away the foundations of a long-
term readiness of the total force. the short-term adaptations are possible, the enduring effects of these decisions puts the future health and retinas of the force at risk. by the beginning of next year, more than 50% of my tactical units will be below acceptable levels of readiness for deployment to combat. in a very real sense, we are eating our seed corn to feed current demands leaving less to plant for the long-term capabilities of the force. this pattern inevitably leads to a hollow force. it's impacts are already being felt under the continuing resolution. the most troubling and immediate risks are those that sequestration imposes on our people. sequestration does not heard things, it hurts our people. the qualitative edge of the american service member is a fundamental advantage that defrayed shapes our forces from our enemies. the quality of comic edge will be severely eroded by the impacts of sequestration leave
america's men and women with them -- with inadequate training, the critical and, and reduced survivability. military pay and plans have been exempted in this round of sequester, the quality of life for the all-volunteer force and their families will inevitably suffer as we reduce family programs and installation maintenance. our civilian marines will likely be impacted. 95% of our civilian work force is employed outside of the national capital region. they are the guards at our gates, our financial experts that build and manage their budgets, our acquisitions specialists, the therapists who treat the wounded, the experts to repair or equipment and the teachers to teach our children. the economic impact of these families and their local communities are put at risk by short-term furlough and long- term termination. protecting our ability to keep faith with our families and our wounded warriors is a top priority in my court.
even the best, the most sacred of responsibilities, will be increasingly placed debt risk under sequestration allow me to articulate one more risk -- the risks to our nation. in the final analysis, sequestration potentially asks the most from those who have borne the supreme sacrificed for the effects of frustration or the next 10 years will threaten the foundation of the all-walter force, putting our nation's security on a vector that is potentially dangerous. it will dramatically shape perceptions of our government as an employer and as a customer thereby reducing confidence throughout our institutions. these are strategic matters that demand our immediate attention and i urge this committee to consider the full range of risks created by this legislation and continuing resolution. i ask for your assistance and in getting them to the extent possible. thank you and i look forward to the opportunity to answer questions. >> thank you very much.
your insistence on the word 'risk' is something you and i have talked about for quite some time. we've got to get rid of the risk and the uncertainty as it relates to our national defense. i can tell you that having worked on this committee for a long, long time, we want to eliminate those risks. we are trying to get our message through and what you all are telling us today is helping with that effort to break the wall and get the message through. thank you so very much. jet -- general welsh. >> thank you for allowing us to attend this hearing, all of us consider this an honor to be here. i would like to add my thanks to the subcommittee and a greater committee for the tremendous work have done over time in
supporting our military forces. you understand the context of this discussion which is why i think we are happy to be here today. i agree with everything you have heard already and i will not be labour the point you have heard. sequestration of an abrupt and alarming impact on people, retinas, infrastructure, and eventually, modernization of the air force sprayed it represents a two $0.4 billion reduction in 2013 and the effects every account and every program. if that occurs, it will significantly undermine your air force readiness and responsiveness today. it will impact our civilian work force in the coming months. its impact on modernization will affect our future capability. the cuts will force an involuntaryeventually, modernize 22-day furlough for up to 180,000 air force personnel and that meant 31.5 million man hours of lost work. for the remainder of this fiscal work not to mention the personal impact on those individuals and their families.
it will result in loss of over 200,000 flying hours. let me explain what that means -- we will protect flight operations in afghanistan and other contingency areas and protect nuclear deterrence in flight training but roughly 2/3 of our active duty, our fourth duty will scale down home training in march. they will drop below acceptable readiness levels by mid-may and most will be completely non- mission capable by july. that will require at least six more to return to the present trend levels beginning in october, assuming we have funding to do so. it will cut 30% of our remaining weapons systems sustainment funds making us postponed airplane engines grayback club that will take years to recover from. strategic agility and response iveness is jeopardized with the
many strategic abilities we have. sequestration of an immediate effect on our ability to respond to multiple and current operations around the world, something we have been asked to do. longer-term, sequestration cuts air force modernization programs and that will impact every one of us. disruptions will step raise unit cost and delay delivery of validated capability to the fighters in the field. the air force is long overdue for reconstitution following two decades of wars. our inventory still includes aircraft from the 1950's and are forced is as small as we have ever been since becoming a separate service in 1947. we now find ourselves stuck in the space between readiness and modernization. we need your help to get out. i urge you to do all that is necessary to avert the arbitrary cuts of sequestration and pass an appropriations measure for the current fiscal year.
if sequestration is inevitable, i applaud the efforts we have already heard to grant as much flexibility as far as reprogramming authority and other restrictions that limit our flexibility to medicate the signet impact of sequestration and a year-long continuing resolution. this is an unusual budget environment and i believe unusual measures are worth considering this year. thank you again for allowing this to be here and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much for your statement. we appreciate what you have to tell us. we will pay strict attention, believe me. i like to introduce a general greass. world, there are many things we're doing that we could not do. general grass, understand the importance of the organizations you lead.
>> thank you, it is a real privilege and honor to be here today to represent a 460,000 army international guardsmen. in my 43 years serving in a military uniform, mostly with the national guard, i witnessed a transformation from a strategic reserve into a premier operational force. the army and international guard capability, compatibility, combat experience, and operational relationships with all of our military services has been incredibly valuable to our nation, our states and territories and the district of columbia. the current complex fiscal environment marked by the promise of a year-long continuing resolution and combined with the threat of sequestration puts the readiness of this operational force at risk. the budget uncertainty is
already degrading our ability to provide ready forces to meet our domestic and overseas missions. the adjutant general have been provided with near-term majors to assist them to mitigate budget risks and threats to readiness. examining and reducing overhead, curtailing and cancelling conferences, not renewing temporary civilian personnel, implementing hiring freezes, and reducing aircraft flying hours are now in effect. the national guard rapidly expand the capability and capacity of the active component when called to federal service as well as supports civil authorities in the 54 states, territories, and the district of columbia. we provide properly equipped military units on a very short notice to support first responders. as typified in last week's
snowstorm response in the midwest. most notably, in 2012, in response to hurricane sandy, governors were able to put thousands of guardsmen on the ground within hours to come to the aid of citizens. we were able to do this because of the institutional procurement, training, educational and depot-level training that the army and air force provide a separate reductions in these critical areas will have an immediate impact on national guard readiness. in a matter of months, are ready this as an operational -- >> military leaders earlier this week on capitol hill, we go live to the house radio and tv gallery with remarks from the house armed services committee on the defense spending cuts or -- >> good morning, i am from california, the chairman of the armed services committee. these are members of the
committee, most of the chairman of the subcommittees and each of us will have a few words to say. we have the responsibility to protect our nation's defense and to make sure that those who sent out to war have the things they need to carry out their missions and return home safely. i have never in my lifetime seen such a lack of leadership and truth telling emanating from the white house and from our commander in chief. senator reid and the democratic leadership, for three years, have not passed a budget and we have given them a pass. you have given them a pass and i was watching general odierno this morning who has been chief of the army for 1.5 years and has never had a budget. that goes for the chairman of the joint chiefs and all of the chiefs. these men who have dedicated their life to protecting our nation, we put them in these
responsible jobs and give them no financial support, no direction. sequestration was the president's idea. over one year ago and when we tried to fix it he said no. if you do anything, i will veto it. during the campaign, he said it will mount happen. the last couple of weeks, he has come out and said it is armageddon, the world will end in the last couple of days, he said he has played all kinds of roles in this position. when woodward, a respected journalist, tried to lay out the truth, he was crucified, vilified, i don't know to what extent this white house will go to but it has got to end. we are done cutting our defense. we are fairly intelligent.
we know we can cut 2 cents out of a dollar of government spending, every family in this nation has had to do that. while we cut those two cents, 50 cents has, but -- come out of our national defense for every dollar we spend. the president talked about a balanced approach and will not address the real problem. we're telling the president and john boehner that when you walk out of that meeting this morning, do not plan on cutting our national defense one more cent. i would like to turn to mike turner. >> thank you. the president has called congressional leaders to the white house as a backdrop to his game of sequester. it is again the devils with our national security and hurts our men and women in uniform. promised that was was not happened and it will happen with a stroke of his pen.
this did not need to happen from the proposal by the presence of sequester in august, 2011 for the failure of the super committee and through his reelection campaign until today. the president has not brought forth one proposal to offset or end sequester. the president has simply not turned in his own work. the president is touring the country talking about sequester, the department of defense, the pentagon, and our men and women in uniform are preparing for furloughs across the country. these are for laws that will the people protecting our country and protect our national security. while that is occurring, the only work being done on sequester in the white house is being done in the press corps. the senate took up a bill yesterday that actually sets of sequester and replaces it with more spending. the cbo scores the bill as a $7.2 billion increase in spending the cbo scored the
seventh homework as failing. the house has passed two bills and they are both on the house armed services committee website and they both replaced sequester with responsible cuts and both system and our national security and reduce overall spending. the president's team on sequester has said it is irresponsible and reckless and wrong and dangerous. we agree. in my community, wright- patterson air force base, 3000 people are facing furloughs my community is listed as number 3 in the nation that will be impacted by sequestration, men and women who get up and go to work every day to protect our national security. the president has broken his promise today to the american people and begins with sequestration which was his idea that he places for today with his signature and does so on the backs of those to protect us. mr. president, it is time to get to work and send an actual proposal to congress, thank you. >> i am randy forbes and i'm the
chairman of the sea power forces subcommittee. people at our home in virginia fill there is way too much bravado coming out of the white house may be too much coming out of congress. nobody is sitting there at looking at the concerns that the have right now when they are worried about whether or not they can send their children to school and whether they will have a job next month are not. i want them to know that while the house of representatives has gone home and the senate has gone on, the chairman of the subcommittees have not. we're telling you we are continuing to work because we will come forward with proposals that helped mitigate these consequences for national defense and we think we will see them as soon as next week. the second thing is, we are tired of the definition we have seen of acceptable risk and we will change that. it will no longer be acceptable when the u.s. navy can only meet 51% of all of our requirements. it will not be acceptable risk for airports to have pilots flying planes that are older than them. it will not be except to lure us
to have an army cutting out 80,000 troops and it is no longer acceptable for us to find the lowest possible point we can have for our military and still argue that it is acceptable. we will begin today a new chapter that rebuilds this military and strengthens it so it can defend and protect our security and the generations beckham after us. we are turning the lights back on to the analysis for national defense in this country for both political parties. one of the things is when you have a journalist that starts talking about the actual facts and refined the white house turning on them and attacking them, the story that has not been written the is the gag orders that began with this administration and the pentagon or individuals could not talk about the implications of these cuts that come down. even as late as last week, sought memorandum -- i saw a memorandum where people could not talk and we will change that and write a new chapter to that.
i like to present the chairman of the readiness subcommittee. >> thank you, want to make sure people understand where we are today and we have been. secretary superdelegate put in place $100 billion of reduction to our defense budget in 2011. there were four to $87 billion of reductions. as we stand before the sequester, nearly half a trillion dollars, the sequester put another half a trillion dollars in place. by any measure, that is catastrophic. we are looking at our readiness, our ability to meet the threat out there and we are at a place of increased risk, our military leaders say it is a readiness crisis. we cannot beat their. we have always stood behind our military, stood behind our men and women in uniform that defend this nation to make sure that they have the overwhelming superiority on the battlefield and the call on them to defend this nation. that is our obligation as a
nation. will no longer be able to do that with sequestration. those men and women will be asked to go into a fair fight. in defense of this nation, it is incomprehensible. we owe it to them and the men and women in dod and we owe it to the great contract and commanded that supports our military to provide the ability to defend this nation and make sure they have the overwhelming superiority and make sure they can fight to victory and come home safe. that is our obligation as a nation and then these to be a renewed sense of urgency as members of the house armed services committee and a congress to make sure we do the job that we were sent her to do when we raised our right and to uphold the constitution to provide for the common defense of this nation and maintain and provide for its armies and navies. the job needs to start a new today and that's what we are here. thanks again and i want to welcome to the podium, the chairman of the military personnel subcommittee, chairman
joe wilson. >> thank you very much. as a 31-year veteran of the army national guard, i want to thank block mckeon for his support this is the third round of budget cuts on the defense department. the was a $100 billion reduction followed by a $487 billion reduction in defense spending and today begins possibly $600 billion in cuts. the american people need to know that the budget is 80% of the federal budget by 50% of the cuts are applied against a fence. this truly create a circumstance and i'm grateful for the leadership of secretary leon panetta who pointed out that these cuts could lead to the hauling out of our military, putting military and military families at risk. i appreciate his leadership. the american people need to
know that our defenses are at a low point. we will have the fewest troops since 1939 in the army and marine corps. we will have the fewest ships since 1916. we will have the fewest aircraft since the air force was created in 1947. there has been a survey indicating that the confidence of the american people in our national security is at an all- time low. i am hopeful that we can come together on addressing these issues and i am so hopeful, indeed, that the president will change course. we know the policies of defense that work are peace through strength and i hope he will change its policy and recognize how we must have peace through strength and not have a circumstance of potential attacks due to weakness i'm honored to be here with the
chairwoman of the oversight and investigations subcommittee, martha roby of alabama. >> there is a better way to cut spending. we are harming our military and military families. from the beginning, that is exactly what this is about, the harm that this sequester would do to our military families. i cannot help but think about the mom down in alabama was husband is on his third or fourth deployment and she is sitting there watching this play out on the news and wondering whether she will be able to cook food -- put food on the table for her family while her husband is in harm's way fighting for the freedom and liberty that you and i enjoy. i would just say it is unconscionable what the president is doing. we cannot tax our way out of the sequestered.
we cannot tax our way out of debt. the president received his tax increase in january. it is time he and the senate get serious about mandatory spending reforms that we can re- prioritize what happens first and that is providing for a strong national defense and it is unconscionable for this president to use our military families as pawns in his crusade for higher taxes. the 13th district of texas. let me close with two points -- the federal government has to get its fiscal house in order by cutting spending. and the federal government has to defend the country in a dangerous and increasingly complex world. we do not have the luxury of doing one or the other. we have to do both. there are lots of options to do both. you have heard the house has passed a bill twice that would
cut other spending and prevent the sequestration. the mcken -ayotte bill would reduce federal employment through attrition and use those savings to offset sequestration. i introduced a bill that would delay further implementation of the health-care bill by two years. ministration will not be ready to do it anyway. 25 states have said they will not set up their exchanges if you give them more time to get their act together, you save the taxpayers $130 billion. beckham also offset its orchestration. there are lots of options out there to do both of those we need the senate and the president to adopt one. the second point is that we are not giving up. just because it is march 1, it does not mean we are folding our hands and saying this is the way it has to be. for example next week, on the house floor, we will vote on a
defense appropriations bill that will last us for the rest of the fiscal year. that will not on do sequestration but it will add flexibility and it will help update the categories which will reduce some of the damage that comes from having a continuing resolution and a sequestration at the same time. we will keep working for solutions that protect the country, get our fiscal house in order. need the commander in chief to do the same period -- we need the commander-in-chief to do the same. >> thank you again for being here and we can take a few questions. >> on the 27th of this month, you'll look at closing down parts of the government if we don't get a continuing resolution. the idea of passing a defensive preparations bell --bill does
not sound like to get traction in the senate. will you guys push for an omnibus. many of these bills have been negotiated and committees have been working together. on defense and a host of other preparations bills, it looks like you could get deals. would you push for and on the boss? >> it is a cr that will run for the end of the year. wrapped up and that is the defense appropriations bill but it would fund the government through the end of the fiscal year. you can call up and on the bus or whatever you want but it does -- and on the bus --omnibus for what ever you want. let's get that passed next week and let's see what the senate does. we are used to them not doing anything. we are not waiting until march 27 to work on this.
we want to get ahead of it. there is no thought of closing down the government. we have enough problems around here without getting into that. yes? >> you have been raising concerns about these cuts since they were created. the are some republicans in the last week that have indicated they would be ok with these cuts for the time being. do you feel there has been a change and your side of the aisle on this? >> i fought sequestration. i fought for a $407 billion but that is done. we accept that and the chief said they could live with that. they had to change the strategy we have had since world war two. there will not be able to fight two wars and protect us in two different places around the world. we look at korea and iran and other hot spots around the world. we pulled back from that. that is already being
implemented, those cuts, but they had a year to work on those in plan. the sequestration gives them no flexibility. it cuts every department an equal percentage. it is a crazy way to do things. i am hopeful -- we knew that the national security spending needed to be part of the deal. remember what i said it -- 50 cents of every dollar we have saved so far for this effort has come out of our national security. that is too much when they only account for 18% of the spending. >> you said your get your vote on the budget control act. -- you said you regret your vote on the budget control act. >> there is enough blame to go around. many of these members voted against it. i took the leadership's promise
that the super committee would do its work. the president promised it would never happen. that has passed and it happens. that vote at that time was to raise the debt ceiling. if we had not done that, we wouldn't have had a serious crisis -- we would have had a serious crisis. i was hoping that given time, we could come up with a better solution and it that has not gotten done. i am saying it has gone for another. this is the end. no more cuts out of national security. >> [indiscernible] was there a meeting of view -- of many of you in the speaker's office? have you informed other members about the sequestered? what would you have done differently and how would you have argued differently to avoid
this? >> let me turn to mr. turner on that. >> part of the problem in this debate is the president's made a promise to the american people that would not happen and constrained and restricted the department of defense of telling the american people what would occur if he broke his promise. we're standing here today with the president having broken his promise and the department of defense scrambling to get the message out to the american public. there is not yet understand because the department of defense has not been able to abandon their homework what will happen. we have been working on this. since it was first proposed by the president and have a better understanding of the consequences. we agree with the president that it is wrong. >> you have been talking about this since august of 2011. >> there is no question that the amount of articles that could have been written about the
specifics of what this means to educate the american public would have been helpful. we were speaking in committee rooms and press conferences. there is a gap between what everyone knows and what will happen. we believe the president has broken his promise and needs to allow the department of defense to tell people what will occur. >> can you explain how the appropriations bill would mitigate the effect of sequestration? >> we have two serious problems. the planning of the chiefs and how they decide to spend their money are handcuffed right now. we are operating under a cr keeps us on fiscal year 2012. we passed a defense authorization bill that ended some programs and given the opportunity to start more
important programs. that was passed and signed into law last december. unless you fund it, they are hamstrung. if we do a cr for the rest of the year or some kind of funding mechanism that does not give them the preparations and the authority to move funds from one area to another, it severely impacts them. one of the gravest concerns we have is a readiness. i know we have troops that are being trained to go to the war theater and they are not receiving the same training they did one year ago because those funds have been cut. if we do not pass that appropriations bill, they will be cut further. i was told by the secretary of the army that he will have to cut 40% out of his operating maintenance account which is where the training comes from. this cannot be allowed to
happen. >> is a problem for your efforts that there seems to be a bit of a mixed message within your own party, that many people are saying let the cuts go ahead and call the president's bluff and many are saying we need defense cuts. i have heard many people saying things that are not in line with what you are saying. >> in the congress, there is 435 people. we cannot all be experts and everything. we have had the opportunity to hear from the cheeks, those who -- from the cheeks, those from the battle was. we have had the opportunity to go to afghanistan, iraq and hot spots around the world and see. we have a greater knowledge of how the impact of these cuts will be on our national security. most people have forgotten or did not know about the $487
billion in cuts we have made when the american people think of cuts, they are looking at waste, fraud, and abuse. we're past that. when you add the sequestration on top of that, i saw a poll and we have not reached the majority of people. only 38 percent of americans knew what sequestration was. i can guarantee you that out of the 38%, a very small portion understands exactly what the real impact will be. they have not had a chance to visit the bases were the training is not being done it should be done. they have not seen down in fort rucker or the flying hours will be cut for the helicopter pilots. we know the problem and we're trying to reach out to all of our colleagues to make sure they understand it, too. that is a process that takes time. >> would you be willing to
accept any tax increases as part of a replacement package if that's what the president wants? >> we just passed $600 billion of cuts. a tax increase is a few weeks ago. many of us voted for that. we did not want but the president has talked about a balanced approach. his balanced approach is increase taxes, cut our national security, cut defense. at some point, you have -- if he wants a balanced approach, he better start bringing mandatory spending to the table. if we cut all discretionary spending, we would still be running a deficit of half a trillion dollars per year. most people understand what the problem is. it is the mandatory spending. not bringing that into the discussion makes the rest of this kind of an exercise in
futility. >> it sounds like you are talking about next steps from your side to give dod more flexibility to implement sequestration. do you plan anything to delay it again or turn it off? >> can wrap up with the vice chairman of the committee? >> we're not saying this is done. we will keep after it. i gave you three different proposals that would save money and other places other than the sequestration. we will keep looking for options. we will not say this is done. we have opportunities coming up as budget resolutions,, the debt ceiling in may -- there is a lot of opportunity to go here. as the german mentioned, the only area of government spending that had an
authorization bill signed into law by the president is defense. as we look at appropriation bills to pass for the rest of the year, passing defense which is consistent with the authorization bill that he has already signed into law makes perfect sense. we will do that next week as a step but it is not the end. we will keep after it >> thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> members of the house armed services committee offering their thoughts on the impact of
sequestration on the nation's defense. president obama was scheduled to meet with house and senate leaders to discuss possible resolution to the sequestered. that meeting got under way this morning at 10:18 and senate leaders harry reid and mitch mcconnell and house leaders john boehner and nancy pelosi were all in attendance. reports yesterday indicated that neither side was optimistic of a sequester resolution. we're opening our phone lines to get your thoughts on the sequestered and how you are feeling. we're opening our phone lines -- the numbers are on your screen. we want to know how your family or friends are being affected by all of this if they are. have the congressional leaders and the president handle this properly in your view?
the first call is from ken , a democratic caller. go ahead caller: president obama seems to be asleep at the switch. we need leadership in our country. we are hurting. everybody is hurting. everybody has to pay something. it will be payback time. i feel obama should bring in the department heads and tell everyone of them to cut 10% of their budget. everybody shares equally in the pain that way. the military should not be cut as much as it is. i am a veteran and i want a strong america going forward. host:pam on the republican line from california -- caller: a lot of people have forgotten that we have lost more than one of a billion dollars in revenue because of nafta and that revenue trickles up.
when you consider the city and county and state to not generate revenue, they collect taxes like the federal government. they do not generate revenue. we should be concerned with the fact that we're spending more thanwith 30 million dollars. iran for congress and i know that the spending that has occurred within this administration is a continuum from the clinton administration. you know, when they revalued the reinvestment act and the -- what is it -- the spiegel act, they ran into trouble because it allows for people to have housing that they normally would not have. so when these two issues hit,
the loss of homes, people are losing jobs expediently. with the sequestering, which normally applies to physics -- you have the idea that we are going to separate and allow this to come forward, it is just terrible. host: thanks for your call. tonya is next, calling from new york. go ahead, tonya. caller: hello? i just wanted to say that both republicans and democrats need to get together and solve this issue. it doesn't make sense for the republican congressman to beast standing there and say -- to be standing there and saying things without talking to each other. the problem is we are not talking to each other. with all the press going on, it is not -- with all the cuts going on, it is not only affecting the military. every department needs to say how this will affect them. yes, the military is important,
but taking care of our own, the american people, is also explor important. revenue is absolutely important. we cannot run this country without more money coming into the government. host: that meeting between the president and house and senate leaders got underway at 10:18 this morning. we have cameras set up in case anyone from the meeting has remarks. president obama, mitch mcconnell, harry reid, speaker john boehner, and nancy pelosi all taking part. next is a call from our democrats line. caller: good morning, everybody. watching c-span and cnn and all these other stations, it makes me sick we cannot have a working government in the united states. how will we push our democracy in the world when we cannot get
our own house in order? john boehner sits there and says it is time to do something. everybody knows all the appropriations bills start in the house. he has not done nothing. obama gave him a 10 to one ratio. he already gave a $1.2 trillion cut. the deficit this year went down $2 billion. i don't understand what these republicans want. the more you give them, the wemore they want. host: jerry is calling from ohio, the republican. caller: i could not get through to the democrats part, so that is why i am calling republican. we talk about all these cuts and everything, but i never hear
about any cuts over in the middle east. are we going to stop sending money over into the middle east and start taking care of american people first? i heard the other day they are going to give $66 million in aid to syria. they are not even our allies. they are russia's and china's so why are we putting this money over there? are we going to be cutting that? i think we should. start putting the american people first. the military i don't think we should cut. we should cut the waste and military, but we should not ever start to cut the military. i could say a lot more, but, you know, i think i have said enough. thank you very much. host: next to gordon in ohio on the independents line. caller: i agree with jerry very
much. i am a democrat -- he's a democrat, i am an independent. but we are all one people. the man in the white house is not for americans. he is for himself and big business. he cares less what the little people do. he puts up a front like he cares about us, but he does not care about us. we should quit giving all these money to all these so-called allies that hate us, giving jets to people who want to kill us. we need to support israel and the american people, and i am a veteran. i am 75 years old and i am so sad to see what our country has come to. this president in that office, we have no president. we have a dictator. host: an article in today's "politico," titled "sequestration: so now what your t?"
collapsing mean the of america, so it is understandable that this is mated to a not for tv crisis. americans are shown in polls not to be paying attention to the fight, even though it is said sequestration will hurt the economy." the next call is steve on the democrats line. he is in maine. steve, are you there? ,aller: i'm upset about this too, because i really feel -- it does not matter. i am glad you have this line where we can speak our peace and say -- it is not really going to matter what we say. i feel it is really ridiculous that we vote these people into office, and yet they cannot get anything done. between the democrats and the republicans, nobody can do anything, and everybody plays
this mind game and plays with people's lives. and as far as president obama, everything he has done and tried to do -- the republicans tried to stop it. they need to stop it and quit playing these games and let the president get on with what the important thing is to do in the world. host: we appreciate your thoughts. next is donna, calling from virginia on the independents line. caller: i appreciate you taking my call. i believe in the government they do not work together, republicans, democrats, and they try to work against the president. it is always either against another democratic president or against a republican president when they are supposed to be working together to help the country.
they are not supposed to be working against them to where the president has to negotiate with just republicans, pretty much, because they have decided they are not giving up -- they are not going to give any revenue and they want more or less cuts. is it my understanding that the military cuts have already taken place because we are not in war? because two wars ended, and so that is part of the military spending cuts? so that was not taking away stuff in the same area that the sequester would take. it seems everybody is spinning their wouldst -- spinning their words to make it sound good for them. i feel strongly that the senate and the congress should have term limits. they get in there and they keep their presence and their jobs, and they are getting huge pensions. they get medical coverage for life. no person in america gets a
pension after three years in office. i am shocked, and i don't know why we have not been able to have term limits. get people who want to make changes for everybody, not so they can be reelected. when bush was in office, which bush does not seem to be coming into this at all. he left us with the deficit. nobody wants to talk about that. he started wars that put us into debt, millions of dollars a day. now that he has disappeared, it is all obama's fault. host: in case you have any questions about when sequestration gets underway, it officially starts today, most likely 11:59 p.m., although the president could act sooner when cuts are ordered of nine percent for most nondefense
programs and 13% for defense programs. the office of the and and budget will transmit a budget to congress with those same details. next is george from the democrats line from ohio. caller: hello. i am so disappointed that people don't really see that the republicans are playing a game against this president. and our country. everybody left speaker boehner do this crap. i think it is wrong, wrong, wrong. and everybody ought to be smart enough to see who is playing the game they don't want a black person in there. they don't want somebody black. they want somebody that they think cares. republican officials do not care in that senate. they are playing games and they need to stop because they are playing with our lives.
that is all i have to say. host: the final call is ken in minnesota on the republicans line. ken, do we have you? go ahead, one more time. ken in missouri. caller: it is tim. i have something to say. thank you for taking my call. here is the way i see it. ok, obama promises all this and all that. democrats have changed. ever since roosevelt it has changed. people took advantage of trying to help people out and everything. that's why i am a republican. another thing is because cutting our military, all that is doing is making them countries over there that is against us, make us look weak.
then selling weapons to states, then people don't care us over there. that is why our founding fathers were based on faith, why the declaration of independence and the bill of rights. the president does not care about this country, and the people in this country had better wake up and realize what has happened. they had better read izzy keele to figure outzekiel 38 what is going on. host: a meeting between the president and house and senate leaders. it started at 10:18. if there are follow-up remarks from any of those in attendance at the meeting, we plan to have those for you on c-span. also, a quick reminder about today's white house briefing
coming up that 11:30 eastern with spokesman jay carney. we plan to have that live for you on c-span. the parks now from -- remarks know from a reporter on the impact of sequestration on the di defense department. host: what is the headline, keith laing, about -- guest: the obama administration has raised the specter of flight delays and longer lines at tsa, making this the way they have tried to illustrate the impact of sequestration cuts. republicans in the house has said that they are raising false alarms, that there are other places the fha can cut or the tsa can cut before they go to air traffic controllers or airport security screeners. host: here's a headline that keith laing wrote -- "white house suppressed or ash white house warns sequester
will produce chaos that nation's airports." what is the white house warning could happen? guest: the white house has said the faa would have to cut $600 billion from its budget. they have said that they would have to go, the cuts would have to go as far as air traffic controllers because they are the bulk of the faa's 47,000 workers. this is different than the faa shut down a couple of years ago when the administration took pains -- host: we will leave this here to go to the white house for remarks from house speaker john boehner, just leaving that meeting fr resident this mornin. -- with the president this morning.
[no audio] >> is about taking on the spending problem in washington. a continuing resolution next week to fund the government passed march 27. i am hopeful we will not have to deal with the threat of a government shutdown while we are dealing with the sequester at the same time. the house will act next week, and i hope the fellow -- i hope the senate will follow suit. thanks. >> mr. speaker, why did you wait a whole -- >> mr. speaker? host: house speaker john
boehner. we apologize we did not get the full audio, but we were recorded that and will have it for you later. again, the president meeting with house leaders, senate leaders this morning. the meeting started at 10:18, and as the day unfolds, we will get more details as to what went on if anything during that meeting. while we wait for more reaction from those in attendance at the meeting, minority leader nancy pelosi had her weekly briefing yesterday, when she talked about the sequester.
>> good morning, everyone. i am so honored to be here with some of my women colleagues in the house of representatives. others are on the floor as they debate the violence against women act. it is important to come together today because tomorrow is fraught with meeting on -- with meaning on the calendar. first of all, march 1, it is a day that the indiscriminate across-the-board spending cuts will cause unemployment, instability, and uncertainty in our economy. it is a day where soon people will be getting a pink slip. we might as well get a pink slip from the office of the speaker and the republican congress. the 750,000 american workers laid off because of sequester implementation.
unless the house gop stops the mindless across-the-board spending cuts, you, too, could lose your job. tomorrow also is the beginning of women's history month. we like to think of it as women's progress month, acknowledging our history, seeing what more we have to do. why i mention these two points is because of the impact of sequestration on women. it is specific, large, substantial, and it must be avoided. my colleagues are here to share some of the details about it, but just consider this -- cuts to women's health and prenatal care and cancer screenings. cuts to services for women who are victims of domestic violence. cuts to initiatives to support children and families, cuts to public sector jobs where women
are 50% more likely than men to be employed. and therefore fired. democrats, we want solutions. republicans want sequestration. some of them have even called it a home run. that doesn't sound like anybody who is on team america if they think sequestration, indiscriminate mindless cuts across the board are a home run. there is no time to waste. you know that. once again, we are up against a time limit. we should stay here. how could we have been gone for 10 days just leading up to coming in now for a few days? we have a positive solution. chris van hollen, our budget chair, has put forth an initiative that recognizes we must cut spending, that we need revenue, and we won growth with jobs. it is similar to the proposal in the senate. it is positive, and it employs some suggestions that republicans have made themselves in the past.
our priorities are clear. creation of jobs. i have said to you before, others have told me since last week, two weeks ago when we talked about what is the meaning of the word sequester. sequester -- one of my colleagues who is a latin scholar told me it is to hold hostage. that is exactly what this does. it holds hostage the future of the growth of our country for an ideological antigovernment attitude. so tomorrow we will go to the white house. hopefully everyone with an open mind as to how we can deal with a wide array of issues so we do not had these minute to minute, month-to-month crises, manufactured crises. for the sake of our country, for the sake of america's women, for the health and security and our economic security, for our families, democrats and republicans must work together to protect the middle class,
create jobs, and reduce the deficit in a very, very sensible way. with that, i am pleased to yield to a champion for women, lilly ledbetter. she will talk about some of it. the distinguished chair of the policy committee. >> thank you very much, madam leader. i am honored to stand here with our colleagues to address these issues. if i may quickly, i will paraphrase from a report of the national women's law center. women are more likely than men to be poor at all stages of their lives because of ongoing employment discrimination and greater responsibility for uncaged -- for unpaid caregiving. these across-the-board cuts threaten mobile services for women and their families, and these are -- threaten vital services for women and their families.
they also threaten our economy and will cost women thousands of jobs. while there will be a ripple effect throughout the economy, many of the jobs destroyed by this sequester will be public- sector jobs that are disproportionately held by women. women make up 57% of public- sector jobs. while the private sector has continued to gain jobs over the past year, the public-sector lost 74,000 jobs, 85% of these, 63,000 jobs held by women. they were lost by women. cuts to head start could cost 14,000 teachers am a teacher's assistants staff their jobs. cuts to title i education grants would mean 10,500 more teachers and eight jobs. cuts to special education would force the layoff of almost 7500 more jobs. and wic would lose benefits.
you will see a loss at the state and local level because we know who is working in the offices. you take childcare, where 86% of families served are single- parent households. we know who the childcare providers are in this country. they are mostly women. allowing these cuts to pass is reckless, it is irresponsible, and it is especially harmful to women, to their jobs, and to the services that they rely on. what do women want from this economy? what do they want for their families? they want an economy that creates jobs, that grows the middle class, and provides an opportunity for themselves and for their families to succeed. we should not be going down this road. the democrats have an alternative. we just need to take hold of it and move forward and make sure that women, economic security, is not
further eroded. thank you. with that, let me introduce someone who has been unbelievable champion before she came to this institution and is in this institution. that is the commerce woman from illinois. -- the congresswoman from illinois. >> warning -- sequestration is dangerous to women's health. for example, one, sequestration will cut essential initiatives, including $8 million from the breast and cervical cancer screening program. and $24 million for preventive and reproductive health services in title x. the national institutes of health will take a hit of $1.56 billion, cutting back research in areas such as l summers, environmental health links to breast cancer, and mental health services.
2 -- sequestration hurts mothers. while the united states lags behind other industrialized nations in preventing maternal and infant mortality, sequestration cuts $4 million from the safe motherhood initiative grade $50 million from the maternal and child health services. incredibly, it would deny lifesaving immunizations to 30,000 children. three, sequestration hurts women as caregivers trade women -- as caregivers. sequestration would cut $12.6 million from the national family caregiver program. reducing services to 700,000 family caregivers. four -- sequestration will hurt the many women who work in the healthcare profession. sequestration will cut the national health service corps,
educational assistance and training for direct care workers, nurses, family physicians, and other healthcare professionals. warning -- sequestration is bad for the health of women and their families. now it is my pleasure to introduce someone that i have the pleasure of co-sharing, the seniors task force of the democratic caucus, someone who is a champion of women of all ages. that is doris matsui. >> thank you, jan, and thank you leader pelosi, for bringing us together. all of us today believe we should be focusing on moving our country forward. but instead this ugly word of sequestration threatens to cripple our economy. with severe cuts that is devastating to the country's women, children, and families. if sequestration occurs, 70,000 young children will be kicked out of head start programs.
at home in my district of sacramento, an estimated 300 children will lose access. these little kids don't know or care what sequestration is about. they only care about learning their colors, their abc's, getting their snacks, and perhaps learning how to play with each other. their mothers care about a safe, nurturing environment that headstart provides, and the resources available to them to get back on their feet. this includes someone i just recently talked to, ashley freeman. a sacramento resident who knew she had to make some changes in her life when she became a mother. thanks to headstart, her daughter received nutritious meals and early education. ashley was able to finish her education while also working. sequestration will also force cuts to the women, infants, and children program, or as we know
it, wic. wic connects low-income women with the lifesaving services they need to give healthy -- to give birth to healthy and raise healthy children. it is a helping hand to women who need it absolutely the most. i have seen the lines of wic. there are two programs in my district. i do not want to see them get longer and longer. these are not cuts that we can afford at all, and i stand here with my colleagues today to urge the majority to work to prevent them. now it is my pleasure to introduce a friend of mine, holly donna edwards from maryland. >> thank you, congresswoman matsui, and to leader pelosi, for bringing us together to focus our attention on how these harsh, arbitrary, and
across-the-board budget cuts will harm millions of women across this country. here today after months of failure to pass the violence against women act, it is quite the irony that later today the house is going to finally re- authorize -- hours before they take a sledgehammer to the already strapped to just of the nation's domestic violence shelters and programs, causing severe disruption in services to victims of domestic violence. when six william women -- more than six million women each year are harmed by domestic violence. millions of children live in homes where they witnessed domestic violence, and as a result of the republicans failure dos --and it is their failure -- services to their safety will be cut by $20 million. 112,000 victims of domestic
violence coming putting 3500 in the small state of maryland, will not receive the critical resources they need to escape domestic violence. 230,000 victims will be calling crisis hotlines, and those calls will go unanswered. 230,000 calls to crisis hotlines around the country. can you imagine that in the middle of the night i woman is being battered, she has her two children come a wants to get to safety, she places a phone call to a hotline, and that line goes unanswered? that is what sequestration means to victims of domestic violence. so i think this is shameful. we all do. we also know it can be stopped great so here we are on a thursday, set to go home for the weekend. first of all, in america, working america does not go home on a thursday.
there is time to stop this. the republicans hold the gavel. the republicans have the ability to stop sequestration and the devastation to millions of women and children who are victims of domestic violence across this country, and it is very shameful that they are going to go home this weekend without doing that. so, for the women who are forced to stay in their homes with their abuser because there is no place to go because shelters have been cut, cut shelters -- because hotlines go unanswered -- that is on the hands of the gop here in the house of representatives. so i would urge our colleagues even at this late moment that there is something they can do about that. the democrats have put forward a fair and balanced proposal that balances spending cuts with revenue so that we can deal both with our deficit but also with how we grow our economy. it is time for them to do that.
with that, i would like to turn the microphone over to my colleague who is a leader on small business from new york, nydia velazquez. >> good morning, everyone. sequestration is bad for our economy. these type of cuts that are so deep will be detrimental to our economy, and particularly the job creators. small businesses. but i want to remind you that women-owned businesses are the factors growing sector in our economy. 8 million strong. they generate well over one dollars trillion in sales. these businesses are some of the most innovative, and unlike their corporate counterparts, they do not have an army of attorneys. they do not have a gigantic sales team and ready access to
the capital market. filling this void is the small business administration, which fuels our commitment to women entrepreneurship are in the sequester has the potential to undermine this very promise by reducing funding across-the- board. as a result, most women-owned firms will be reduced by $250 million, translating to a decrease of 3500 jobs through this means fewer women will be able to access affordable capital to turn their ideas, their dreams into reality. when it comes to federal contracting, we have been fighting for so long, we even took the bush administration to court to implement the contracting women program.
now that it is up and running, we are going to shut the door, preventing a level playing field for women to act on contracts. this will translate to $1.3 billion in small business contracts that will be lost for women entrepreneurs. which will jeopardize at least 15,000 jobs. these losses, when combined with the closure of nearly 80 entrepreneurial small business centers that serve mainly women across america, that will provide technical assistance so that they can turn those ideas into a financial plan and then go to a bank -- women small
business center. they will not be there to assist and provide the technical know- how to help these women. given the challenges they face, women-owned businesses rely on these very programs to level the playing field. by slashing this initiative, years of progress can be undone in an instant. this is not only bad for women, but it is bad for the us economy. now it is my pleasure to introduce a new member, a great asset, congresswoman brownlee. >> thank you very much. first i want to thank madam leader for holding this important press conference and for your leadership on this very important issue. as a member of the veterans affairs committee, as an american and as a proud representative of ventura county, we are home to a large naval base with a very significant veteran community.
i am extremely concerned about the impact the sequester will have on our women and men and their families who have courageously served, sacrifice, and defended our country. if congress fails to stop the across-the-board and unnecessary cuts at this time, so many programs that help veterans, like transitioning to civilian life and finding employment, will be reduced. more veterans with less resources is unacceptable. our brave men and women deserve better. now is the time to be doing more, not less. for our veterans sake, we need to come together to stop the sequester now. thank you very much.
>> thank you very much, my colleagues. while congresswoman brownlee was speaking about our veterans, i was thinking of some examples of pink slips that will go out and furloughs that will occur among, for example, psychiatric nurses who are there to help our returning vets with ptsd. that will be cut. mindless, mindless cuts. i am so proud of our members, all of our house democratic caucus, but there is a special pride today in our women. as you can see, they have knowledge of the issues, experience working with legislators and in their communities. i know they would agree that all that they talked about here, as serious as it is, is just only more on top of other cuts and other impacts. $1.6 trillion agreed to.
cuts in research, you name it, across-the-board. now we have these additional cuts, and lord knows what is in store for us in the future. so women are calling a halt to all of this. we have got to change this environment. we take these cuts, these hits, and they hit right to the homes and kitchen tables of america's families where in many cases women, single thing -- single- parent homes. i said sequester earlier and hostage. i have always given sequestration equals joblessness, unemployment. but don't take it for me -- but don't take it from me.
louise slaughter of the rules committee. we talked about bernice johnson on the science and technology committee. one of the ranking members -- host: live now to the white house, president obama talking to reporters about the meeting on sequester this morning. >> i just met with leaders of both parties to discuss the way forward in light of the severe budget cuts that start to take effect today. i told them that these cuts will hurt our economy, it will cost us jobs, and to set it right, both sides need to be willing to compromise. the good news is the american people are strong and they are resilient. they have fought hard to recover from the worst economic crisis since the great depression, and we will get through this as well.
even with these cuts in place, folks all across this country will work hard to make sure that we keep the recovery going. but washington sure isn't making it easy. at a time when our businesses have finally begun to get some traction, hiring new workers, bringing jobs back to america, we should not be making a series of dumb, arbitrary cuts to things that businesses depend on and workers depend on. like education and research and infrastructure, and defense. it is at a time when one too many americans are still looking for work, and it is inexcusable. not everyone will feel the pain of these cuts right away. the pain will be real. beginning this week, many middle-class families will have their lives disrupted in significant ways. businesses that work with the military, like other virginia shipbuilder that i visited on
tuesday, may have to lay folks off. businesses near military bases will take a serious blow. hundreds of thousands of people who serve this country -- border patrol agents, civilians who work at the pentagon, will sit -- will suffer pay cuts and furloughs. all of this will cause a ripple effect throughout our economy. layoffs and pay cuts mean people have less money in their pockets, and that means they have less money to spend at local businesses. that means lower profits, fewer hires. the longer these cuts remain in place, the greater the damage to our economy. it will intensify with each passing day. congress is estimating that as a consequence, we could see growth cut by over one half of one percent. it will cost about 750,000 jobs at a time when we should be
growing jobs more quickly. so every time that we get a piece of economic news over the next month, the next two months, the next six months, as long as the sequester is in place, we will know that that economic news could have been better if congress had not failed to act. let's be clear. none of this is necessary. it is happening because a choice that republicans in congress have made. they have allowed these cuts to happen because they refused to budge on closing a single wasteful loophole to help reduce the deficit. as recently as yesterday they decided to protect special interest tax breaks for the well-off and well-connected, and they think that is apparently more important than protecting our military or middle-class families from the pain of these cuts. i do believe that we can and must replace these cuts with a
more balanced approach that has something from everybody. smart spending cuts, entitlement reform, tax reform that makes the tax code more fair, families and businesses without raising tax rates. also that we can responsibly close the deficit without laying off workers, forcing parents to scramble for childcare or slashing financial aid for college students. i don't think that is too much to ask. i proposed it for two years, it is what i ran on last year. the majority of the american people agree with me in this approach, including, by the way, a majority of republicans. we just need republicans in congress to catch up with their own party and the country on this. if they did so, we could make a lot of progress. i do know that the republicans in congress, who privately at least say they would rather close tax loopholes that let these cuts go through -- i know
there are democrats who would rather do smart entitlement reform than let these cuts go through. so there is a caucus of common sense up on capitol hill. it is a silent group right now, and we want to make sure that their voices start getting heard. in the coming days and weeks, i will keep on reaching out to them. both individually and as groups of senators or members of the house, and say to them let's fix this. not just for a month or two, but for years to come. it is the greatest nation on earth does not conduct its business in months two months -- in month to month increments. america has got a lot more work to do. in the meantime, we cannot let political gridlock around the budget stand in the way of other areas where we can make progress. i was pleased to see that the house passed the violence against women act yesterday.
that is a big win for not just women but for families and for the american people. it is a law that will save lives and help more americans live free from fear. it is something that we have been pushing for a long time. i was glad to see that done. it is an example of how we can still get some important bipartisan legislation through this congress even though there are still these fiscal arguments taking place. we can still make progress even with the sequester unresolved. i am going to keep pushing for high-quality preschools for every family who wants it. i am going to push to make sure that we raise the minimum wage so it is one that families can live on. i am going to keep on pushing for immigration reform, reform the voting systems, or improvements on the transportation sector. and more sensible gun reforms because they still deserve a vote. this is the agenda the american
people voted for. these are america's priorities. they are too important to go unaddressed, and i will keep wishing to make sure that we see them through. with that, i am going to take some questions. i will start with julie. >> how much responsibility do you feel you bear for these cuts taking effect? is the only way to offset them at this point for republicans to present -- to raise revenue, or all there are candidates? >> we have already cut $2.5 trillion in our deficit. we have to come up with another $1.5 trillion. the problem when it comes to deficits is not discretionary spending, not that we are spending too much money on education, not that we are spending too much money on job training or that we are spending too much money rebuilding our roads and bridges. we are not.
the problem that we have is a long-term problem in terms of health care costs and programs like medicare. what i have said very specifically, very detailed, is that i am prepared to take on the problem where it exists, on entitlements, and do some things that my own party really doesn't like. if it is part of a broader package of sensible deficit reduction. so the deal i have put forward over the last two years, the deal that i put forward as recently as december is still on the table. i am prepared to do hard things and to push my democratic friends to do hard things. but what i can do -- but what i can't do is ask middle-class families, ask seniors, students to bear the entire burden of
deficit reduction when we know we have a much of tax loopholes that are benefiting the well-off and well-connected who are not contributing to growth and to the economy. it is not fair, it is not right, and the american people don't think it is fair or right. i recognize that speaker boehner has got challenges in his caucus. i recognize that it is very hard for republican leaders to be perceived as making concessions to me. sometimes i reflect, is there something else i can do to make these guys -- i am not talking about the leaders now, but maybe some of the house republican caucus members not paint horns on my head, and i genuinely believe there is an opportunity for us to cooperate.
, andhat doesn't make sense the only thing we have seen from republicans so far in terms of proposals, is to replace this set of arbitrary cuts with even worse arbitrary cuts. that is not going to help the economy. that is not going to help growth or create jobs. as a number of economists have noted, ironically it does not even reduce our deficit in the smartest way possible or the fastest way possible. so in terms of going forward, my hope is that after some reflection, as members of congress start hearing from constituents being negatively impacted, as we start seeing the impact that the sequester is having, that they step back and
say, all right, is there a way for us to move forward on a package of entitlement reforms, tax reform, not raising tax rates, identifying programs that don't work, coming up with a plan that is comprehensive and that makes sense. it may take a couple of weeks, it may take a couple of months. but i am just going to keep on pushing on it. my view is that ultimately common sense prevails. but what is true right now is that the republicans have made a choice that maintaining an ironclad rule that we will not accept an extra dime's worth of revenue makes it difficult for us to get any larger conferences
deal. that that is a choice they are making. they are saying it is more important to preserve these tax loopholes than it is to prevent these arbitrary cuts. what is interesting is speaker boehner just a couple of months ago identified these tax loopholes and tax breaks and said we should close them and raise revenue. so it is not impossible to do. they themselves have suggested it is possible to do. if they believe that in fact these tax loopholes and these tax breaks for the well-off and the well-connected are not contributing to growth, are not good for our economy, are not particularly fair and to raise revenue, why don't we get started? why don't we do that? it may be that because of the politics within the republican party, they can't do it right now.
i understand that. i hope is they can do it later. i just want to repeat, julie, does it is under port -- it is on them -- because it is important to understand -- democrats are not being asked to do anything either to copper mines. there are members of my party who violently -- to compromise. there are members of my party who violently disagree that we should do anything with medicare. i am willing to say to them, i disagree with you. because i want to preserve medicare for the long haul. we are going to have some tough politics within my party to get this done. this is not a situation where i am only asking for concessions from republicans and asking nothing from democrats. i am saying that everybody is going to have to do something, and the one key to this whole thing is trying to make sure we keep in mind who we are here for. we are not here for ourselves, we are not here for our parties.
we are not here to advance our electoral prospects. we are here for american families who have been getting battered pretty good over the last four years, are just starting to see the economy improved. businesses are just starting to see some confidence coming back, and this is not a win for anybody. this is a loss for the american people. again, if we step back and just remind ourselves what it is we are supposed to be doing here, then hopefully common sense will prevail in the end. >> so you are saying -- congress is saying this is a republican problem and not anything you bear response ability for. -- so you are suggesting the congress is -- that this is a republican problem and not anything you bear responsibility for. >> it goes right of the problem
of our long-term deficit problem. i have offered negotiations around that kind of balanced approach, and so far we have gotten rebuffed because what speaker boehner and the republicans have said is we cannot do any revenue. we cannot do a dime's worth of revenue. so what more do you think i should do? i just wanted to qualify. because if people have a suggestion, i am happy to -- this is a room full of smart folks. >> mr. president, the next focal point seems to be the continuing resolution funding the government at the end of the month that expires. would you sign ser that continues to fund the government. can you use any of the persuasive hours you have to
convince republicans this is not the way to go? >> i would like to think that i still have some persuasive power left. let me check. look, the issue is not my persuasive power. the american people agree is my approach. they agree that we should have a balanced approach to deficit reduction. the question is, can the american people help persuade their members of congress to do the right thing. i have a lot of confidence that over time, if the american people express their displeasure about how something is working, that eventually congress responds. sometimes there is a little gap between what the american people think and what congress thinks. but eventually congress catches up. with respect to the budget and keeping the government open,
for our viewing audience to make sure that we are not talking in washington gobbledygook -- what is called a continuing resolution, which is essentially just an extension of last year's budget into this year's budget to make sure that basic government functions continue, i think it is the right thing to do to make sure we do not have a government shutdown. that is preventable. we have a budget control act. we agreed to a certain amount of money that was going to be spent each year, and certain funding levels for our military, our education system, and so forth. if we stick to that deal, then i will be supportive of us sticking to that deal. it is a deal that i made. the sequester, are additional cuts on top of that, and by law until congress takes the sequester away, we would have to abide by those additional cuts.
but there is no reason why we should have another crisis by shutting the government down in addition to these arbitrary spending cuts. >> would you sign a budget that continues to cut the government even if -- >> i never want to make myself 100% clear with you guys, but i think it is fair to say that i made a deal for a certain budget, certain numbers. there is no reason why that deal needs to be redone. it is a deal that speaker boehner made as well and all the leadership made. if the bill that arrives on my desk is reflective of the commitments we previously made, then obviously i will sign it because i want to make sure we keep doing what we need to do for the american people. >> mr. president, to your question, what could you do,
couldn't you just ring them down here and refused to let them leave the room until you have a deal? [laughter] jessica, i am not a dictator, i am the president. i cannot have secret service blocked the doorway. i understand. i know that this has been some of the conventional wisdom that has been floating around washington, that somehow, even though most people agree that i am being reasonable, and most people agree that i am being fair, the fact that they do not take it means that somehow i should do a jedi mind meld with
these folks and convince them to do what is right. if they are elected, we have a constitutional system of government. the speaker of the house and the leader of the senate and all those folks have responsibilities trade what i can do is make the best possible case for why we need to do the right thing. i can speak to the american people about the consequences of the decisions congress is making or the lack of decision making by congress. ultimately, it is a choice they make. this idea that somehow there is a secret formula to get speaker boehner or mitch mcconnell to say, you know what, mr. president, you are right, we should close some tax loopholes for the well-off and well- connected in exchange for some serious entitlement reform and
spending cuts in programs we don't need -- i think if there was a secret way to do that, i would have tried it. i would have done it. i could make the best possible argument, and i can offer concessions and i can offer compromise. i can negotiate. i can make sure that my party is willing to compromise and is not being ideological or thinking about these in terms of political terms. i think i have done that and i will continue to do that. but what i cannot do is force congress to do the right thing. the american people may have the capacity to do that, and in the absence of a decision on the part of the speaker of the house and others, to put middle-class families ahead of whatever
political imperatives he might have right now, we are going to put these cuts in place. i am hopeful that people will do the right thing. there are other formulas or other ways to rejigger this to get a better result. >> what do you think of those who endorse you, who argues that there is posturing that there will be big layoffs and there are a lot of people who will be out of work and think the effect of the spending cuts are being overstated by the administration such a mark >> >> the department had to figure how the children of military families are going to continue with their schooling over the next several months because
teachers are typically civilians. they are therefore subject to furlough, which means they may not be able to teach one a week. i expect we will be able to manage around it. but if i am a man or woman in uniform in afghanistan right now, the notion that my spouse back home it's having to worry about whether or not our kids are getting the best education possible, the notion that my school for my children on an army base may be disrupted because congress did not act, that is an impact. mayor bloomberg and others may not feel that, i suspect they want. but that family will. the border patrol agents who are out there in the hot sun doing what congress said they are supposed to be doing, finding
out suddenly that they're getting a 10% pay cut in having to go home and explain it to their families -- i do not feel like they think this is an exaggerated impact. i guess it depends on where you sit. what is true is that not everybody is going to feel it. not everybody will feel it all at once. what is true is that the accumulation of those stories all across this country -- folks might have been working all of their lives to get an education just a they could get that job and get out of welfare, and they have their kids in head start and now that headstart is gone and they're trying to figure out, how am i going to keep my job because i cannot afford child care for my kids. some of the suppliers for those shipbuilders down in virginia, you have got some suppliers
where this is all small businesses do him and him i said on those companies and those employees will be laid off. the accumulation of those stories and -- of impact will make our economy weaker. it will mean less growth. it will mean hundreds of thousands of jobs lost. that is real. we are not making that up. that is not a scare tactic come a that is a fact. starting tomorrow, everybody here, all of the folks who were cleaning the floors at the capital now that congress has left, somebody is going to be vacuuming and cleaning those floors and throwing out the garbage, they will have less pay. the janitors, the security guards, they just got a pay cut. they have to figure out how to manage that. that is real. relatively clear here -- i want to be clear here, it is true that this will not facilitate the crisis we talked about with
america of defaulting and problems around the debt ceiling. i do not anticipate a huge financial crisis. but people are going to be hurt. the economy will not grow as quickly as it would have. unemployment will not go down as quickly as it would have. there are lives behind that. that is real. it is not necessary. that is the problem. >> the president -- mr. president bus? >> christie. >> thank you. your administration spoke about the proposition eight case. i thought you could speak about your deliberation and how you are taking a position on that.
where their conversations important to you or think that you read that influence your decision? >> last year upon a longer it of reflection, i concluded that we cannot disseminate against same-sex couples when it comes to marriage. that the basic principle that america is founded on, the idea that we are all created equally, applies to everybody, regardless of sexual orientation as well as race or gender. or religion or ethnicity. i think that the same evolution that i have gone through is an evolution that the country as a whole has gone through. i think it is a profoundly out of thing.
-- positive thing. when the supreme court is called to question by taking this case about california for the law, i did not feel like that was something that this administration could avoid. i felt it was important for us to articulate what i believe and what this and administration stands for. although i do think that we are seeing on a state-by-state basis progress being made more and more states recognizing same-sex couples and giving them the opportunity to marry and maintain all the benefits of marriage that heterosexual couples do. when the supreme court asks do you think that the california law, which does not provide any
rationale for this terminating against same-sex couples other than just the notion that they are same-sex couples. vistaprint court asks me -- the supreme court asks me do we think that meets as additional muster, i felt it was important to answer that question honestly, any answer is no. >> given the fact that you do hold that position about gay marriage, i wonder if you thought about, once you made the decision to weigh in, a lot of people argue that marriage is a right that should be available to all people. >> that is an argument that i have made personally. we are obliged to answer specific questions. this is the question presented before the court right now is whether trop eight -- prop 8 is
unconstitutional. we have put forward a basic principle that -- which applies to all equal protection cases. whenever a particular group has been disseminated against, the court asks the question what is the rationale for this, and there had better be a good reason. if you do not have a good reason, we will -- we will strike you down. what we have said is that same- sex couples are a group, a class that deserves heightened scrutiny, that the supreme court needs to ask the state why it is doing it and if the state does not have a good reason, it should be struck down. that is the core rentable as applied to this case. -- principal. if they did that if the court decides it is not a plan escape and it cannot apply in any case. if i run the court, that is the view i would put forward. i'm not the judge, i am the president.
the basic principle though is less treat everybody fairly. let's treat everybody equally. i think the brief that has been presented accurately reflect our views. >> thank you. you said a few minutes ago that the entry has to stop careening from crisis to crisis. with a few crises behind us and a few ahead, taking a step back from this specific debate over the sequester, however the leader of this country do you plan to stop the country from careening from crisis to crisis? >> number one is to make sure that we keep making progress wherever we can on things that are important to middle-class americans and those who are fighting to get into the middle class. if you set aside budget fights for a second, we have been able to get the violence against women act is done.
become her stations that taken place on a bipartisan basis around immigration reform are moving forward. in a seen great interest bipartisan fashion around how we can continue to improve our education system, including around early childhood education. there have been constructive discussions around how do we reduce gun violence. what i'm going to keep on trying to do is to make sure that we push on those things that are important to families. we will not get everything done at once, but we can get a lot done during that is point number one. with respect to the budget, what i have done is to make a case to the american people that we have to make sure that we have a balanced approach to deficit reduction but that deficit reduction alone is not economic policy.
part of the challenge that we had here is that -- not only congress, but washington in general, spends all of its time talking about deficits. it is not spend a lot of time talking about how to we create jobs. so i want to make sure that we are talking about both. i think that we could put a lot of people back to work right now rebuilding our roads and bridges. we know we have to do it. i went to a bridge that connects mitch mcconnell's states to john boehner's state, and it was a rotten bridge. everybody knows it. they want to see that improved. but how do we do it? that will create jobs, be good for businesses, improve commuter times and safety. that has to be part of this conversation, not just this
constant argument about cutting and spending. so my point is that what i want to try to do is make sure that we are constantly focused, that our true north is on how are we helping american families succeed very essence it -- succeed. as it reduction is an important part, but it is not the only part. i do not want us to be paralyzed on everything just because we disagree on this one thing. as irony said to jessica, what i am also hoping that -- as i already said to jessica, what i am also hoping over time is that as republicans step back and maybe they can say we stuck tough on the sequester, this makes us feel good, the republican caucuses in a better mood when they come back. maybe then we can have a more serious discussion about what the real problems on the deficit
and deficit reduction are. the good thing about america is that sometimes we get to these bottlenecks and we get stuck. you have these sharp partisan fight, but the american people pretty steadily our common sense and particle -- and practical. eventually that practical approach went out. i think that is what will happen here. in the meantime, just to make the final point about the sequester, we will get through this. this is not going to be an apocalypse, as some people have said. it is just dumb. it will hurt individual purple -- people and the economy overall. but if congress comes to its senses a week from now, a month from now, three months from now , then there is a lot of hope
and room for us to grow our economy more quickly. in advance the agenda of the american people dramatically. this is a temporary stop on what i believe is the longform -- long-term, outstanding prospect for american growth and greatness. [indiscernible]>> at some point today, president obama will sign a document officially enacting $85 billion in automatic then he cuts. -- spending cuts. we will open up a line began to get your thoughts. you number is -- the number is
202-585-3885 for democrats, 202 -585-3886 four republicans and for independents. mitch mcconnell, harry reid, vice president joe biden all metadata and we are going to take you to a briefing with nancy pelosi. it should happen any moment. we will take you up to the capital when it does. but let's get to phone calls. we have folks waiting. jim on our democrats line. are you there? >> yes. >> go ahead. >> i feel our government has failed us. they keep talking about wanting to get the money back into the country. all they have to do is rebuild the electrical grid, the piping systems.
nuclear power plants. rebuild the rail system. rebuild the steel mills, oil refineries, chemical plants. right now we are in a terrible condition. cutting the poor, edit -- elderly, kids, that will not help us. what they have done is terrible. i cannot believe that people are supposed to run our country and would just walk away from their jobs. if the rest of us to do, we would be fired. they do it on a grand basis. and then pretend like it is all right. they should be ashamed. >> let's hear from kansas, debbie on the independent line. >> hi. i just wanted to say that i think the government has -- was created to provide security, safety and protect freedom.
i do not think it was necessarily created to run all of our lives as much as they are, as much of their into it. i think all of the regulations that they have any government -- i would think that some of those things could be cut instead of putting money toward those. maybe they can look at something like that. as far as unemployment, i do not think it is going down. i think it is because people are scared. that is why they are not starting businesses and doing things to create jobs. i think creating jobs is the number one things they should be focused on. i do not think that the money should be going into multiple different rubber and any government. they have overlapping agencies within them. maybe they should look at cutting some of those. i have pages and pages of reports of that showed multiple different agencies that have different groups in them that are doing the exact same things. >> where did you get that report, debbie? >> i got it off the internet.
the title is section one. >> thank you for calling. we have a caller from college station, texas. >> those are great colors. i have so much meat from what obama gave the press group there. this man lives more than the devil himself. he is -- first of all, the sequester was not the idea of congress. jack lew gave obama the idea and he accepted it. in this case he lost. the sequester is cutting the rate of spending. that is what mostly linear united states and understand. they are really -- revenue is really tax increases. he just got one on january 1. he claimed it was only going to be on the top earners in the country. guess what? i got a tax increase on january 1. i only make $31,000 a year. i want to know what he thinks he knows about the middle class.
>> on c-span, we are waiting to take you live to comments from democratic leader of the house, nancy pelosi, at the capital. speaker boehner to talk to -- to talk really. he said "in my view, it is over. it is about taking on the spinning problem in washington." darlene in michigan on our independent line. >> hi. i am a senior citizen. first off, i want to apologize to the president of the united states. i have never seen any president in all my life that has taken so much guff off of these republicans. i want to thank him for standing strong, but i also want to ask him to keep remembering all of
us and keep all of us in his prayers, as well. this year, from a republican in michigan, has taught our homestead refund. i depended on that. >> what was that? >> it with a homestead refund from your taxes. i had paid in concord almost $3000 worth of taxes. >> why did he get cut this year? >> ask them. they cut it. >> that is darlene in concord, michigan. we are waiting to take you live to nancy losey. next up, riverside, california on our democrats line. scott? >> four eight cents on the dollar, for every -- there are 130 million tha transaction thae tao. at eight cents per tradition,
that is $50 million a day, a billion dollars every three years. you put it toward your roads and bridges. >> you are talking about a transaction tax. >> ok. all the people it would higher would be paying taxes, and all of the materials they would buy would help the economy. it is a win-win. >> teresa and virginia. -- and virginia appeared quite high, i am from new york. >> i'm getting it wrong. >> that is ok. i just wanted to say how sick and i was by what the president is doing, scaring the american people. he says the american people want what he is selling. i am an american, and i do not want what he is selling. he is got his tax hike. it is about time we started cutting funding. my family has to live on 2%
less the cut taxes are going up. why can't he? he can go on vacation every year, every month. i cannot even go on vacation. i can barely feed my family. he has the nerve to stand there and lie. i am appalled at what is going on. i'm happy that the republicans are standing their ground. we need cuts. no more taxes. >> that get some twitter reaction to the president of the comments. #seqeuester. one) a hundreds of thousands of americans who serve their countries, all will suffer. also from david, we should not be making dumb, arbitrary cuts to things that businesses depend on and workers depend on. one more from chris, comparing sequester to the great depression -- 12 pinocchio's. we expect nancy pelosi's
comments momentarily. we will be at the pentagon tear from -- to hear from someone about how the pentagon will face their automatic spending cuts for their -- for this fiscal year which will happen today once the president signs the executive order. arkansas on the independent line. this is laura. >> i do not understand why i should care about the roads and bridges when i can barely afford a vehicle to drive. i do not think obama has any idea what the middle class wants. what we want is jobs. what we want is to stop having to carry the the the people who depend on us for their welfare. i have to work for my own family. when do i get rewards? the scare tactics that he is using -- it makes me ashamed.
i think he should be impeached for things he has said. obama is rich to me. visitors are rich to me. i'm tired of hearing about how the rich need to pay their share. i want the people who don't pay, who are always getting, to pay their share in some way. you reduce their welfare, take some money you're going to give them, if they need it, god bless, but take that and put it aside for healthcare matters and other things that they would need. why do i have to keep pulling the load? i am so tired. republicans, stand your ground. >> thank you for your call. we go to ohio with bob on our republican line. bob, go ahead. >> i'm glad they done it. now they'll have to look at it and realize they got to do stuff and work together. as far as cuts, look at my household.
we both lost our jobs. we are making half of what we did. maybe even 40%. the places they got to cut, they got to cut. they don't want to come together, then they need to do this to keep from taking a down the road. they should have started this a long time ago. jobs is number one. >> norm is from georgia. go ahead. >> i would like to say if the government truly wanted to do some thing for the american people, they need to start with congress. a 25% pay cut for congress. they do not have the right to keep taking from the american people and taxing us. i'm so tired of being taxed, and i agree with the other people -- maybe this time to start impeachment. not just of the president, but
of the congress because congress does not want to come to a head. the majority of them do not. this country would not be in the condition it is, but they are a disgrace. i served in the military. when i see what the military families are going through today, it is an absolute disgrace. before anybody starts cutting anybody, let's start the cuts in the white house itself. all of these extra trips, all of these big fancy dinners. it is not right to the little people. >> a couple more tweets. here's one from brian who said speaker boehner, transportation, gop, gop oversight, you likely do do better, cut more wasted spending. the sequester is a charade. all, greg is in -- back to calls, greg is on our republican -- but look at mine. >> thank you.
number one, no new taxes, stand your ground, fight it and do not let it happen. half the people do not pay any taxes. none. the top 1%, 2%, they pay the majority of taxes and the middle class picks up the slack. >> the $85 billion of cuts that go into effect today, greg, your sense of that it will not be widely felt. >> i'm number one, to pay 50% pay cut when i changed jobs. suck it up. do your job. go on with it. >> here is frank on our democrats line from kentucky. welcome. you are on the air. >> i have a comment or so. i think a lot of the problem with the house of
representatives, that they hate barack obama, and i think possibly some of it is racist. i am able -- i am a white male. i also think there ought to be term limits set on the senate and the house of representatives. these 16, 20, 30 year terms are no good. eight years is plenty. and if they would cut a whole lot of waste out of the government spending, we all know that it is outrageous. they pay triple, double of what should be paid. if barack obama is not impeached, he really should quit because they are not going to do anything he wants. >> echoing some of frank's comments, the president did a
vote of the blame on republicans in congress, but he said there is a sense of common sense he could work with on capitol hill. we're waiting to hear nancy pelosi and her reaction to the meeting this moment. that meeting getting underway shortly after 10:00 and lasting maybe an hour or so toured with nancy pelosi, the speaker of the house john boehner, mitch mcconnell, harry reid and ice president biden at that meeting. next up, joel is a republican in missouri. >> hello. my thing is, the president talking about pay cuts here and there. everybody getting a 10% pay cut. what is he not getting -- why does he not get a pay cut himself? he lives in the white house for free, he does not have to pay for a thing to survive. i have been unemployed since december. i cannot even mollify for
unemployment. i have my reason. why can the government officials give themselves raises questio? i think all of these government officials that are making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, they are the ones that need to take the pay cut, not the people in the middle class. >> thank you. let's go to. william is on our independent line. >> i would like to talk about entitlements. i voted for ronald reagan. he helped fix social security. all the money that is extra that don't go to the people for that month, they put into general fund and spent it. they are not big on talking about paying it back.
i would just like one person to tell me about that. >> also in oklahoma. mary is on our democrats line in tulsa. >> i believe that the reason why they are making it so hard for the president is because he is a black man, a black democrat. they do not want no black president telling them what to do. they are making it hard for everybody else. the republicans. they didn't do no other president like that. to me, he is the best president. >> we will a you go there. nancy pelosi is coming to the microphone. >> as you know, this morning, the president held a meeting at the white house with the vice president and the leaders of the
house and senate in a bipartisan way. it was an important meeting. alan to point out the clarity between the democrats in the con -- antirepublican than a common spirit we believe that we should build our economy from the middle class out. the republicans believe in trickle-down. that is the essence of our difference. we gather today because today begins the cuts, mindless cuts, that are a result of sequestration, across the board cuts that do not reflect priorities but just reflect a one way to make cuts here and -- cuts. the chairman of the fed has said that cuts of the size made as quickly will lose jobs, slow the growth of the economy, and what is the word on the
deficit? keeping deficits larger than otherwise. the point is to reduce the deficit, growth is essential to that. my list cuts made in a large amount in a short. of time do not reduce the deficit. so the president challenged us to look at all of the expenditures that government makes and whether it is about entitlements, taxes, discretionary spending to see if we could come to some agreement on how to go forward. to govern is to choose. to govern is to choose. when we want to subject our expenditures to the scrutiny that we should do, so that we know the taxpayer is getting his or her money's worth out of this, and at the initiative is doing the job it sets out to do,
we have to make judgments. if a particular initiative still a priority for s? -- for us? is there wasteful spending question -- spending? we have to be careful about how we do it. across the board cuts is not the way to do it. education, probably the best investment we can make in our future and our families. nothing brings more money to the treasury than the education of the american people. the president is advocating hate-12, higher education, nothing brings more money to the treasury then education. so cutting education does not reduce the exit. cuts in education teacher the growth of innovation and cuts in
science do the same thing. so are we going to say across the board we are cutting science? americans must continue to be number one. we do not do that by making cuts in science. the president mentioned infrastructure, cuts and infrastructure. that is ridiculous. we have so much maintenance now. what we do know is that no maintenance is the most expensive maintenance. investing in infrastructure now creates jobs immediately, as well as those infrastructure of our country, which is essential to economic growth. getting people to and from work, broadband information in real- time, high-speed, why would we cut those kinds of things? across the board cuts to do that are mindless. the president mentioned tax reform -- very important but we
all agreed. we must have tax reform. we must look at expenditures that are investments. we have to prioritize. some may be good, but they may not be best. they may not make the cut, even though they are worthy. but we have to prioritize. the next thing is entitlements. of course we want to look at how we can prolong and sustain in a fiscally sound way sus yesterday, medicaid and medicare, pillars of economic security for many of american families, and certainly for our economy. let's sit at the table and make judgments about how to sustain that. the purpose is to prolonged, sustained for a longer. of time in a stronger and fiscally sound way, medicare and social security. i think that is what the
american people want us to do. to say social security has no place in a free society and we want to privatize it and medicare should be voucher eyes, we are not into that. but objectively looking at how we can strengthen those, we should do that. we talked about two levels of expenditure -- investment and entitlements. the third set of eggs managers that we have to subject to scrutiny are tax expenditures. there are probably around $1 trillion of tactics managers -- tax expenditures that occur each year, another $3.5 trillion budget, about $1.1 trillion of it in tax expenditures. some of them are worthy and support the middle class, like the mortgage interest and action. but some are wasteful and our special interest gets.
-- fgifts. some are excessive for the middle class. we have to go to the table and say these tax expenditures are spending. they cost the taxpayer. what are we getting for them? the speaker has said there are hundreds of billions of dollars of tax expenditures to look at. mr. mcconnell has said that. when they look at them, they say the only way is to lower rates. call that reducing the deficit by removing wasteful tax loopholes that are there for the special interest. some of them are just excessive for the wealthiest individuals in our country. we cannot ask seniors and children and family to make all of the sacrifice and say that this is going to be in effect.
we have a proposal that would have been better. one that cuts spending, which has a revenue piece, and which is not deter growth and does reduce the deficit. we have not been able to bring it up. we tried three times. republicans -- i do not know what they are afraid of. this is a marketplace of ideas. are they afraid that some of their members might vote for its? to go forward, it has to be with a commitment to the american people, to the middle class, as the president said. and not for us to be not opening our eyes to the fact that if this is going to happen, it has to be shared sacrifice, that we have to look at domestic discretionary spending, entitlement spending and tax expenditures. that is where the big money is. that is what has remained untouched in all of the discussion.
that is a place we can find some area of agreement. any questions? >> the president suggested you to do more than pr, that the house -- [inaudible]>> i have not seen it. have you seen their cr? i cannot tell you that i've not seen it. but i will say this, we came to an agreement on the budget control act, which said that there would be a certain level that our approach creation -- when i see that, i can tell you what it is. the republicans can produce the
votes to pass it at that level. but we do not want to have a shutdown of government. i think some people thought sequester meant shutdown. it means more like hold hostage all the things you care about so we can have across the board cuts. i just got this morning -- let me describe it to you this way. this memorandum notifies you that the department of justice opposes to furlough you know earlier than 30 days from receipt of this notice. we recognize the difficult personal applications of any furlough, the matter how limited. that is what this furlough is about. so furloughs are arty going in. they will have an impact on people's lives. that is really important. many of you were there yesterday and saw the effect sequestration have on women taking a big hit from this, in addition to other
cuts that have already happened. but it also has a tremendous impact on our economy. losing jobs, deterring growth, and not reducing the deficit. >> -- be part of a bigger deal to replace sequestration, helpful should people who are facing furloughs be that a deal can be reached to stop these furloughs? >> my own hope springs from the american people. i think the more they know about what the choices are that have to be made here, to our republican colleagues, that we cannot have a situation where no absolute statement, no revenue, it is all going to be cut. we have $1.6 trillion already in cuts. one point to any budget control
act. in the budget control act. my hope springs from the fact that we should be able to focus on a tax expenditures. big money there. big money there. we cannot have a situation where one party is saying we are going to protect these wasteful tax giveaways to special interests, but we are going to stop help for seniors. i do not think the american people will tolerate that. yes, yes i think so. as i say, categories are domestic discretionary spending , they're going to cut a lot of money from that. over $1 trillion. they have already done that. we are ready to find more if we
can. that is not in need growth -- impede growth. but to see if there is any wasteful spending, which is not a priority in light of the reality that we have in our budget. there may be some spending cuts that you find there. we are always ready to strengthen medicare, medicaid and social security, as i mentioned. let's go to the table to do that if our goal is to strengthen them. not have our goal is to destroy them. again, the more the american people are aware of what the choice is, the more hopeful we can be. but in terms of actual dollars, the tax expenditures, listen to that, tax expedition. they are spending. there is a recognition by the terms that they are spending. they are spending money. the taxpayer dollars -- they are spending money to give tax
subsidies to big oil in order to drill. $30 billion for them to drill. at a time when they will make $1 trillion in profit. what incentive do they need to drill more than $1 trillion in profit? the list goes on. i do think there is a recognition to be had there. that is a place where we can try to bring into focus and into balance what we are trying to do. >> the president said today to prepare for tough politics. our house democrats prepared to work with him for deeper cuts and raising eligibility age? >> our caucus sent a representative to the table, whether it was biden, whatever
it happened to be, when they went to the table, they went with the confidence of our caucus that they shared values and that we trusted their judgment and their knowledge about what could be accomplished. everybody knows that we don't have one government role. there would have to be optimized. my guidance to them was to be agnostic. put it on the table, and do the job,. does it reduce the deficit? that is how they went to the table -- open. a wall of close with no revenue, that is the point. you cannot do it without revenue. i think you can persuade our caucus for a balance, big, bold approach that has revenue, that has reform, a tax code as well as making judgments about
entitlements if we go forward. but you cannot do it in isolation. you cannot say to seniors and others, you pay the whole price and these others are getting off scott free. there has to be balance in it. the house democratic caucus will not the and opt to go -- an obstacle to reaching a balance agreement. again, we supported the president in the initiative in the summer of 2011. our caucus stood with him. we did not like some of the particulars of it, but in light -- you weigh the equity against what do you get for it. you get growth in our economy. if you can do a one-sided, where it drags one side down, exalts the wealthy and the special interests, and say, see how open we are. i am optimistic that something can be done, but the judgment
is are the democrats ready to go to the table to recognize we need more spending cuts, we need to prolong and sustain in a fiscally sound way medicare and social security, we want to see some movement on the other side in terms of their sacred cows, which are tax breaks for special interests, tax giveaways for special interests. excessive reductions for the wealthy people in our country. that is why we say you can take direction, but you cannot take them to a point where they have a wealthy person paying a lower rate than the people who work in an office. >> have you been informed about the mechanics of the sequester? how will it work, how will it play out, how will people be notified? >> this is one manifestation of it.
i get the saddest part of it -- when i signed on to the budget control act, which i did not like, but it with something we had to do. we do not have it with us. but i made sure there were certain things existed from sequester. medicaid -- it is in my purse, actually. because i brought it. you don't have to do that anymore. [laughter]somebody else can get my purse. [laughter]what was the question? the mechanics. we tried to protect as much as we possibly could because the cuts are brutal. defense, they are mindless. nobody ever thought, nobody ever thought that they would happen. they are so brutal that we thought everybody would cooperate in order to make this
happen. but it trickles down. protect special interest, the high and individuals -- high- end and visuals to avoid these mindless cuts. we made some protections in the bill just in case. but the saddest thing that i heard, because it means so much to all of us, was that some psychiatric nurses who are meeting the needs of our returning vets with ptsd may have to be for load. -- for load -- furloughed. that is not what the american people thinks is the right priority for us. some of the things that we try to protect and medicaid from the image among social security , -- some of the things that we
try to mitigate from the sequester, social security, -- when the president talked about teaching our children, all refundable income tax credits, this will be for low-income, child tax credits, which are important to america's working families. medicare, chip, children's health insurance program, black lung, ssi, child nutrition programs, l grants -- pell grants, and some other initiatives. but those are a few of the ones that we tried to protect. but even with that, the impact on america's working families is something that could have been avoided.
it impedes economic growth, it is not reduce the deficit as it would otherwise be reduced. it should have been avoided. the fact it has not been is unfortunate, but i think it highlights the fact that we must work together to get this done. in terms of the particulars and the mechanics of all of this, people will be getting their furlough notices. you will see that unfold. it will be different for different agencies. one of the things that we have to do in terms of defense is that we have to work together to enable our defense, national security sector, to be able to reprogram so the harm that can be done to our national security can be medicated. -- mitigated. that is more related to what is its cost, having prioritize that. this is not the way to cut the
defense budget, to have across the board cuts that harms our national security. thank you very much. >> sorry about that. >> about an hour and a half after the meeting at the white house with president obama and other leaders, nancy pelosi at the capital. john boehner was first out of that meeting that morning -- this morning and spoke briefly to reporters in the white house driveway. >> the american people know that washington has a spending problem. while there are smarter ways to cut spending
the house shouldn't have to pass a third bill before the senate does anything. i would hope that the senate would act. but let's make it clear, the president got his tax hikes on january 1. this disqugs on revenue, in my -- discussion on revenue, in my view, is over. the house is going to move a continuing resolution next week. i'm hopeful that we don't have to deal with a threat of a government shutdown while we're dealing with the sequester at the same time. the house will act next week and i hope the senate will follow suit. thanks. >> why did you wait until friday -- >> president obama spoke to reporters and asked him as well why he could not use his
persuasive powers to get congress to come to a deal on the sequestration. >> the idea that there is a formula to get speaker boehner or mitch mcconnell to say mr. president, you are right. we should close tax loopholes in exchange for serious entitlement reforms and serious programs we don't need. i think if there was a secret way to do that, i would have tried it. i would have done it. what i can do is make the best possible argument. i can offer concessions and i can offer compromise. i can negotiate. i can make sure that my party is willing to compromise and is not being ideological and just thinking of this in terms of
political terms. what i can't do is force congress to do the right thing. the american people may have the capacity to do that. and in the absence of a decision on the part of the speaker of the house and others to put middle-class families ahead of whatever political perspective he may have right now. but i'm hopeful in huche nature and i will keep reaching out. i will see if there are other ways to get this in place to see if we get a better result. >> the conversation continues online. here's a tweet, isn't it time that the government has to tighten its belt and live within
its means. the furlough notices have been sent. it's really happen ing. all americans workers took a 2% pay cut on january 1. why can't the government take a 2% budget cut now? you can find more in our video library at c span.org. once more is we're planning to take you live at 3:30 to the pentagon. we're going to hear from the deputy defense secretary who will be talking about the impact on the pentagon on sequestration budget cuts and we may hear from chuck hagel as well. that is at 3:30 eastern here on c-span.
this is about 20 minutes. >> good morning, i am from california, the chairman of the armed services committee. these are members of the committee, most of the chairman of the subcommittees and each of us will have a few words to say. we have the responsibility to protect our nation's defense and to make sure that those who sent out to war have the things they need to carry out their missions and return home safely. i have never in my lifetime seen such a lack of leadership and truth telling emanating from the white house and from our commander in chief. senator reid and the democratic
leadership, for three years, have not passed a budget and we have given them a pass. you have given them a pass and i was watching general odierno this morning who has been chief of the army for 1.5 years and has never had a budget. that goes for the chairman of the joint chiefs and all of the chiefs. these men who have dedicated their life to protecting our nation, we put them in these responsible jobs and give them no financial support, no direction. sequestration was the president's idea over one year ago and when we tried to fix it he said no. if you do anything, i will veto it. during the campaign, he said it won't happen. the last couple of weeks, he has come out and said it is armageddon, the world will end in the last couple of days, he said he has played all kinds of
roles in this position. when woodward, a respected journalist, tried to lay out the truth, he was crucified, vilified, i don't know to what extent this white house will go to but it has got to end. we are done cutting our defense. we are fairly intelligent. we know we can cut 2 cents out of a dollar of government spending, every family in this nation has had to do that. while we cut those two cents, 50 cents has, but -- come out of our national defense for every dollar we spend. the president talked about a balanced approach and will not address the real problem. we're telling the president and john boehner that when you walk out of that meeting this morning, do not plan on cutting our national defense one more cent.
i would like to turn to mike turner. >> thank you. the president has called congressional leaders to the white house as a backdrop to his game of sequester. it is again the devils with our national security and hurts our men and women in uniform. the sequester was promised that was not happened and it will happen with a stroke of his pen. this did not need to happen from the proposal by the presence of sequester in august, 2011 for the failure of the super committee and through his reelection campaign until today. the president has not brought forth one proposal to offset or end sequester. the president has simply not turned in his own work. the president is touring the country talking about sequester, the department of defense, the pentagon, and our men and women in uniform are preparing for furloughs across the country.
these are for laws that will the people protecting our country and protect our national security. while that is occurring, the only work being done on sequester in the white house is being done in the press corps. the senate took up a bill yesterday that actually sets of sequester and replaces it with more spending. the cbo scores the bill as a $7.2 billion increase in spending the cbo scored the senate's homework as failing. the house has passed two bills and they are both on the house armed services committee website and they both replaced sequester with responsible cuts and both system and our national security and reduce overall spending. the president's team on sequester has said it is irresponsible and reckless and wrong and dangerous. we agree. in my community, wright-patterson air force base, 3000 people are facing furloughs my community is listed as number
3 in the nation that will be impacted by sequestration, men and women who get up and go to work every day to protect our national security. the president has broken his promise today to the american people and begins with sequestration which was his idea that he places for today with his signature and does so on the backs of those to protect us. mr. president, it is time to get to work and send an actual proposal to congress, thank you. >> i am randy forbes and i'm the chairman of the sea power forces subcommittee. people at our home in virginia fill there is way too much bravado coming out of the white house may be too much coming out of congress. nobody is sitting there at looking at the concerns that the have right now when they are worried about whether or not they can send their children to school and whether they will have a job next month are not. i want them to know that while the house of representatives has gone home and the senate has gone on, the chairman of the subcommittees have not. we're telling you we are continuing to work because we
will come forward with proposals that helped mitigate these consequences for national defense and we think we will see them as soon as next week. the second thing is, we are tired of the definition we have seen of acceptable risk and we will change that. it will no longer be acceptable when the u.s. navy can only meet 51% of all of our requirements. it will not be acceptable risk for airports to have pilots flying planes that are older than them. it will not be except to lure us to have an army cutting out 80,000 troops and it is no longer acceptable for us to find the lowest possible point we can have for our military and still argue that it is acceptable. we will begin today a new chapter that rebuilds this military and strengthens it so it can defend and protect our security and the generations that come after us. we are turning the lights back on to the analysis for national defense in this country for both political parties.
one of the things is when you have a journalist that starts talking about the actual facts and we find the white house turning on them and attacking them, the story that has not been written the is the gag orders that began with this administration and the pentagon or individuals could not talk about the implications of these cuts that come down. even as late as last week, sought memorandum -- i saw a memorandum where people could not talk and we will change that and write a new chapter to that. i like to present the chairman of the readiness subcommittee. >> thank you, want to make sure people understand where we are today and we have been. secretary superdelegate put in place $100 billion of reduction to our defense budget in 2011. there were $487 billionof reductions. as we stand before the sequester, nearly half a trillion dollars, the sequester put another half a trillion
dollars in place. by any measure, that is catastrophic. we are looking at our readiness, our ability to meet the threat out there and we are at a place of increased risk, our military leaders say it is a readiness crisis. we cannot be there. we have always stood behind our military, stood behind our men and women in uniform that defend this nation to make sure that they have the overwhelming superiority on the battlefield and the call on them to defend this nation. that is our obligation as a nation. will no longer be able to do that with sequestration. those men and women will be asked to go into a fair fight. in defense of this nation, it is incomprehensible. we owe it to them and the men and women in dod and we owe it to the great contract and commanded that supports our military to provide the ability to defend this nation and make sure they have the overwhelming superiority and make sure they can fight to victory and come home safe. that is our obligation as a nation and then these to be a
renewed sense of urgency as members of the house armed services committee and a congress to make sure we do the job that we were sent her to do when we raised our right and to uphold the constitution to provide for the common defense of this nation and maintain and provide for its armies and navies. the job needs to start a new today and that's what we are here. thanks again and i want to welcome to the podium, the chairman of the military personnel subcommittee, chairman joe wilson. >> thank you very much. as a 31-year veteran of the army national guard, i want to thank block mckeon for his support this is the third round of budget cuts on the defense department. the was a $100 billion reduction followed by a $487 billion reduction in defense spending and today begins possibly $600 billion in cuts. the american people need to know
that the budget isfederal budget by 50% of the 18% of thecuts are applied against a fence. this truly create a circumstance and i'm grateful for the leadership of secretary leon panetta who pointed out that these cuts could lead to the hauling out of our military, putting military and military families at risk. i appreciate his leadership. the american people need to know that our defenses are at a low point. we will have the fewest troops since 1939 in the army and marine corps. we will have the fewest ships since 1916. we will have the fewest aircraft since the air force was created in 1947. there has been a survey indicating that the confidence of the american people in our national security is at an all-time low. i am hopeful that we can come
together on addressing these issues and i am so hopeful, indeed, that the president will change course. we know the policies of defense that work are peace through strength and i hope he will change its policy and recognize how we must have peace through strength and not have a circumstance of potential attacks due to weakness i'm honored to be here with the chairwoman of the oversight and investigations subcommittee, martha roby of alabama. >> there is a better way to cut spending. we are harming our military and military families. from the beginning, that is exactly what this is about, the harm that this sequester would do to our military families. i cannot help but think about the mom down in alabama was
husband is on his third or fourth deployment and she is sitting there watching this play out on the news and wondering whether she will be able to cook food -- put food on the table for her family while her husband is in harm's way fighting for the freedom and liberty that you and i enjoy. i would just say it is unconscionable what the president is doing. we cannot tax our way out of the sequestered. we cannot tax our way out of debt. the president received his tax increase in january. it is time he and the senate get serious about mandatory spending reforms that we can re-prioritize what happens first and that is providing for a strong national defense and it is unconscionable for this president to use our military families as pawns in his crusade for higher taxes. >> i'm from the 13th district of texas. let me close with two points
-- the federal government has to get its fiscal house in order by cutting spending. and the federal government has to defend the country in a dangerous and increasingly complex world. we do not have the luxury of doing one or the other. we have to do both. there are lots of options to do both. you have heard the house has passed a bill twice that would cut other spending and prevent the sequestration. the mcken -ayotte bill would reduce federal employment through attrition and use those savings to offset sequestration. i introduced a bill that would delay further implementation of the health-care bill by two years. the administration will not be ready to do it anyway. 25 states have said they will
not set up their exchanges if you give them more time to get their act together, you save the taxpayers $130 billion. which can also offset sequestration. there are lots of options out there to do both of those we need the senate and the president to adopt one. the second point is that we are not giving up. just because it is march 1, it does not mean we are folding our hands and saying this is the way it has to be. for example next week, on the house floor, we will vote on a defense appropriations bill that will last us for the rest of the fiscal year. that will not on do sequestration but it will add flexibility and it will help update the categories which will reduce some of the damage that comes from having a continuing resolution and a sequestration at the same time. we will keep working for solutions that protect the country, get our fiscal house in order. need the commander in chief to
to do the same. >> thank you again for being here and we can take a few questions. >> on the 27th of this month, you'll look at closing down parts of the government if we don't get a continuing resolution. the idea of passing a defensive preparations bell --bill does not sound like to get traction in the senate. will you guys push for an omnibus. many of these bills have been negotiated and committees have been working together. on defense and a host of other preparations bills, it looks like you could get deals. would you push for and on the boss? >> it is a cr that will run for the end of the year. wrapped up and that is the defense appropriations bill but
it would fund the government through the end of the fiscal year. you can call up and on the bus or whatever you want but it does -- and on the bus --omnibus for what ever you want. let's get that passed next week and let's see what the senate does. we are used to them not doing anything. we are not waiting until march 27 to work on this. we want to get ahead of it. there is no thought of closing down the government. we have enough problems around here without getting into that. yes? >> you have been raising concerns about these cuts since they were created. the are some republicans in the last week that have indicated they would be ok with these cuts for the time being. do you feel there has been a change and your side of the aisle on this? >> i fought sequestration.
i fought the $487 billion but that is done. we accept that and the chief said they could live with that. they had to change the strategy we have had since world war two. there will not be able to fight two wars and protect us in two different places around the world. we look at korea and iran and other hot spots around the world. we pulled back from that. that is already being implemented, those cuts, but they had a year to work on those in plan. the sequestration gives them no flexibility. it cuts every department an equal percentage. it is a crazy way to do things. i am hopeful -- we knew that the national security spending needed to be part of the deal. remember what i said it -- 50 cents of every dollar we have
saved so far for this effort has come out of our national security. that is too much when they only account for 18% of the spending. >> you said you regret your vote on the budget control act. do you accept responsibility for sequestration going through? >> there is enough blame to go around. many of these members voted against it. i took the leadership's promise that the super committee would do its work. the president promised it would never happen. that has passed and it happens. that vote at that time was to raise the debt ceiling. if we had not done that, we wouldn't have had a serious crisis -- we would have had a serious crisis. i was hoping that given time, we could come up with a better solution and it that has not gotten done. i am saying it has gone for another.
-- far enough. no more cuts out of the national security. >> [inaud able] was there a meeting of view -- of many of you in the speaker's office? have you informed other members about the sequestered? what would you have done differently and how would you have argued differently to avoid this? >> let me turn to mr. turner on that. >> part of the problem in this debate is the president's made a promise to the american people that would not happen and constrained and restricted the department of defense of telling the american people what would occur if he broke his promise. we're standing here today with the president having broken his promise and the department of defense scrambling to get the message out to the american public. there is not yet understand
-- understanding because the department of defense has not been able to hand out their homework on what will happen. we have been working on this since it was first proposed by the president and have a better understanding of the consequences. we agree with the president that it is wrong. >> you have been talking about this since august of 2011. >> there is no question that the amount of articles that could have been written about the specifics of what this means to educate the american public would have been helpful. we were speaking in committee rooms and press conferences. there is a gap between what everyone knows and what will happen. we believe the president has broken his promise and needs to allow the department of defense to tell people what will occur. thank you. >> can you explain how the appropriations bill would mitigate the effect of sequestration?
>> we have two serious problems. the chiefs and their planning and how they decide to spend their money is halved right now. -- handcuffed right now. we are operating under a cr keeps us on fiscal year 2012. we passed a defense authorization bill that ended some programs and given the opportunity to start more important programs. that was passed and signed into law last december. unless you fund it, they are hamstrung. if we do a cr for the rest of the year or some kind of funding mechanism that does not give them the preparations and the authority to move funds from one area to another, it severely impacts them. one of the gravest concerns we have is a readiness.
i know we have troops that are being trained to go to the war theater and they are not receiving the same training they did one year ago because those funds have been cut. if we do not pass that appropriations bill, they will be cut further. i was told by the secretary of the army that he will have to cut 40% out of his operating maintenance account which is where the training comes from. this cannot be allowed to happen. >> is a problem for your efforts that there seems to be a bit of a mixed message within your own party, that many people are saying let the cuts go ahead and call the president's bluff and many are saying we need defense cuts. i have heard many people saying things that are not in line with what you are saying. >> in the congress, there is 435 people. we cannot all be experts and everything.
we have had the opportunity to hear from the cheeks, those who -- from the cheeks, those from thewe have had the opportunity to battle line. go to afghanistan, iraq and hot spots around the world and see. we have a greater knowledge of how the impact of these cuts will be on our national security. most people have forgotten or did not know about the $487 billion in cuts we have made when the american people think of cuts, they are looking at waste, fraud, and abuse. we're past that. when you add the sequestration on top of that, i saw a poll and we have not reached the majority of people. only 38 percent of americans knew what sequestration was. i can guarantee you that out of the 38%, a very small portion understands exactly what the
real impact will be. they have not had a chance to visit the bases were the training is not being done it should be done. they have not seen down in fort rucker or the flying hours will be cut for the helicopter pilots. we know the problem and we're trying to reach out to all of our colleagues to make sure they understand it, too. that is a process that takes time. >> would you be willing to accept any tax increases as part of a replacement package if that's what the president wants? are you willing to bend at all on that issue? >> we just passed $600 billion of cuts a tax increase is a few weeks ago. many of us voted for that. we did not want but the president has talked about a balanced approach. his balanced approach is increase taxes, cut our national security, cut defense.
at some point, you have -- if he wants a balanced approach, he better start bringing mandatory spending to the table. if we cut all discretionary spending, we would still be running a deficit of half a trillion dollars per year. most people understand what the problem is. it is the mandatory spending. not bringing that into the discussion makes the rest of this kind of an exercise in futility. >> it sounds like you are talking about next steps from your side to give dod more flexibility to implement sequestration. do you plan anything to delay it again or turn it off? >> can wrap up with the vice chairman of the committee? >> we're not saying this is done. we will keep after it. i gave you three different
proposals that would save money and other places other than the sequestration. we will keep looking for options. we will not say this is done. we have opportunities coming up as budget resolutions,, the debt ceiling in may -- there is a lot of opportunity to go here. as the chairman mentioned, the only area of government spending that has an authorize bill signed into law by the president is defense. as we look at appropriation bills to pass for the rest of the year, passing defense which is consistent with the authorization bill that he has already signed into law makes perfect sense. we will do that next week as a step but it is not the end. we will keep after it >> thank you very much. national captioning institute] cable satellite corp. 2013]
>> that is the briefing, one of the many going on today. the sequester set to go into effect. a meeting at the white house earlier today yielded no results, according to the president and john boehner. a number of briefings from that meeting as well. president obama speaking to reporters earlier. we do want you to know that you can fine the president's briefing and other coverage in our video library at c-span.org. we're going to take you live to the pension at 3:30 this around. we're going to get a briefing from the deputy secretary of defense ashton carter and possibly from secretary of defense chuck hagel. again, live at 3:30 eastern here on c-span. next up, the joint economic committee and they held a hearing yesterday on the state
and job creation. we'll hear an assessment given on the health of the economy and why growth continues to remain slow. it is an hour and 40 minutes. >> i would like to call the first meeting to order. the employment act established the economic and to make policy recommendation to congress. as the 37th chairman of the committee i would like to welcome both new and returning members of the economy. i would like to introduce our new members.
the growth gap is significant. it intensifies our spending. the growth gap has to aspects, through covering that began in june 2009 is the weakest recovery since world war ii. our economy's potential to grow overtime has slowed. the average rate of growth of 2.1% annually and 187,000 jobs every month is as good as the economy will perform in the future and this is unacceptable. it is appropriate that the
committee should address this growth gap. real g.d.p. increased by 3.7% in a year and a half. today's recoveries less than half as strong as the average. real g.d.p. has to grow at an yull rate of 5.5% in each of the next four years to catch up with the average recovery of president obama's second term. that would be slightly hirer from the 5.4% annual rate that president reagan achieved in the first three and half years of the reagan recovery.
had this been average, it would have increased by 9.4%. the growth gap means the united states should have 3.9 million more private jobs today than it does. equally troubling is mounting evidence that the mounting growth rate for potential real g.d.p. in the future has fallen dramatically. in the outlook, the congressional budget office cut the estimate of the real g.d.p. growth rate to one percentage point below its average since 1950. one point may not sound like much, however, the real economy doubles in 22 years at 3.3% growth rate. but at that lower, smaller rate, it takes 31.9 years to double, almost a decade longer. the prospect of a new normal for
america's economy in which our growth slows by 1/3 should be a red flag for all americans. during this congress, the committee will go through hearings and research with respect to the growth gap and how to close it. no doubt some of the growth gap may be due to demographic factors. however, even a cursory review of recent history strongly suggest that economic and fiscal policies have played the dominant role. to understand how these policies affect performance let's compare the progrowth policies in the 1980's and 1990's to the slow growth policies during the last decade. during the great moderation under both republican and democratic presidents in congresses with split control or republican or democratic. they achieved outstanding results.
the size of the federal government shrank. marginal income tax rates fell. policy makers focused on reducing the after tax cost of capital for new business investment and jobs grew. monetary policy became real based and predictable. ignoring the employment half of its mandate, the federal reserve focused on price stability. the united states led the world in liberalizing international trade in investment. beginning in 2001, under both democratic and republican presidents in congress both democrat and split control, the federal government reversed course in large part to terrorist attacks of 9/11. the results have been disappointing. the size of government has grown soaring to 22% of g.d.p. and
remaining elevated. marginal income tax rates were first decreased then increased and in recent years policy makers have focused on the fairness of the tax system rather than its effect on growth. monetary policy has become discretionary again. the regular tear burdens on businesses has increased generating uncertainty and inhibiting new business investment. the united states has fallen behind its major trading partners. today is the perfect time to focus on the growth gap and what we should do about it. given the historical and legal relationship between the committee and the council of economic advisors, it's appropriate two of the most distinguished chairman are with
us today as witnesses. with that i look forward to the testimony. i recognize vice chairman for her comments. >> thank you very much chairman brady. it's an honor to be here. i'm joined by many colleagues from both the house and senate. i look forward to working on some good discussions and hopefully solutions to the budget and economic problems facing our country. i also want to thank our two witnesses. it is a great way to start this hearing with both of you having been former chairman of the economic advisors. we're at a time when congress's energy is focused on sequestration and the solutions to that. while that is not the focus of today's hearings, in many ways it's a good starting point for our discussion, not just because of the consequences but because it underscores the need for
policies that address our debt challenges without undermining growth. my hope is we can explore some of the bigger pictures for moving our economy forward while discussing specific policies for strengthening the fundamentals, the core engines like entrepreneurship and innovation. as we explore the current landscape, i think it's important to remember where we were a few years ago. i sat through hearings in this room as we would hear the unemployment numbers, the difficult situation our country was in. i think back to the first half of 2009 when our country was losing jobs at a rate of nearly 700,000 a month. that is literally equal to the entire population of vermont. four years later we are adding jobs. not as many as we'd like but
we've seen 35 months of job growth. in that time we've also seen promising signs of growth recently in industries like housing. take the january numbers for new home sales. they hit their highest rate in four and a half years, up nearly 16% compared to december. exporting has been another bright spot with exports reaching a record of $2.2 trillion last year. i personally spent last week in 30 below wind chill weather around minnesota visiting 30 different businesses, saw warehouses full of crates that said ship to china and saw in our state where we are down to 5.5 unemployment. what we are seeing with this private sector job growth which is based on exports in our state as well as a skilled work force. these are positive signs but there is more to be done.
there are more than 12 million americans out of work and there is no question we have much more work to do. our focus needs to be on policies that create job creation in the short term while laying ground for prosperity in the long term. if we've learned anything over the last few years, its that america can no longer be a country that churns money. our financial industry is important but it can't be the basis of our economy. we need to make things and export to the world which we need to work to bring our country back to the brass tacks of innovation and entrepreneurship. i come from a state, i will try not to mention my state too much if you don't mention texas too much. but my state brought the world everything from the pacemaker to the post it note. i have a model i look at how we were able to keep our head above
water during this downturn. this isn't a minnesota story. it's an american story. invasion has kept our country moving forward since its earlier days. the things i think we need to focus on as we go forward, i hope we can be as bipartisan as possible. we're going to have different views, but as long as we get the right information from our witnesses, i think we can come together which we need to bring our debt down in a balanced way. i think there were good things coming out of the simpson bowles commission and the work being done on that balanced approach to bring that debt down. i don't think we can put our heads in the sand. education, i think we should double our schools. we need to get our kids to science and math.
we have so many companies looking for welders and tool and die and these are jobs that are there right now that are going unfilled because we have failed to train students in those areas where we have jobs that are good paying jobs. exports, i mentioned. the president's goal of doubling the number of exports within this five year period is attainable. regulations, keeping very important regulations in place but going industry by industry and saying what can we do to make things work better so we can compete on an international basis. reforming our tax code and doing something about immigration reform which i think is very doable given the bipartisan work in the senate. i'm excited about working with chairman brady and the rest of my colleagues. i look forward to this hearing. thank you very much, mr. chairman.
>> i'd like to welcome and introduce our witnesses for today's hearing. dr. michael boskin is at the hoover institute and professor of economics at stanford. previously dr. boskin served on the economic advisors at which point independent counts rated the ce agency as one of the most respected agencies in the federal government. he also chaired the blue ribbon commission on consumer price index. dr. boskin is author of more than 150 books and is recognized for his research and received the adam smith prize for contribution to economics in 1998. he received his bachelors and masters and m.d. at california
berkeley. >> i'd like to introduce dr. austin goolsbee. previously he served on the council of economic advisors from 2009 to 2011 and led it as chairman. he writes monthly for the "washington journal" and contributed economic analyst for abc news. he's also spent time as a special consultant for internet policy for the department of justice and it was lead editor for the journal of law and economics for several years. he earned his degrees in economics from yale university. graduated from a docket rat in economics. clearly we have highly respected witnesses. there is an awful lot of wisdom
to be tapped today as we look at these issues. >> thank you for your willingness to come before the committee. we look forward to your expert opinion. >> thank you chairman brady, vice chair. i've had the privilege of testifying before this committee and working with it since the 1970's. i obviously testified often in my four years as senior chairman when we were cleaning up two financial crisis, the savings and loans and the banks being insolvent. we had the first iraq war, oil shock and a recession. so not totally dissimilar, though not as large a scale as what we went through recently.
obviously we had a horrific recession following the collapse of the housing market and the housing bubble and the financial crisis. the recovery has been anemic compared to previous recoveries. it's growing at 40% and employment at 20% as rapidly. the subpar growth is as damaging to employment opportunities and skills as the order however deep and severe recession. the modestly good news is despite the fact the economy has been flat lately and most people expect this quarter to be only slightly positive, most expect the economy to pick up this-year and into next. that is the forecast as has been for some time. hopefully they are right but the blue chip is looking at 2.5% or
a little heighter heading to 3% next. that would still be way below what the economy should be doing recovering from such a deep recession. there are many risk it is economy faces from problems in europe, to joe political issues, deleveraging the private sector, racing cost and uncertainty that has yet to be written and enforced and so on. and the uncertainty about the fed's exit from its monetary policy. but there are good signs. technology revolution in fracking and bringing energy cost down in the united states and bringing jobs in a wide array of our states. housing seems to be rebounding and there is lots of cash sitting on the side lines waiting for an improved economic environment and an improved policy environment.
i believe that the early policies, the early fed actions, the automatic stabilizers in the tax code and the making capital available to the banks as poorly as it was done was essential to preventing the recession from getting worse flt but much of the policy since then has not been as effective as it could have been. i detail that in my testimony. the marginal tax cuts, the attempted social reengineering of the economy from energy to healthcare to financial services. whenever their intrinsic benefits and cost created a lot of uncertainty. so i think there are a lot of reasons to believe we have a different course of action is required now. in my opinion, it starts with a strong credible commitment to serious consolidation facing gradually as the economy recovers.
that means it's got to be permanent and structural. it requires process rules on spending and debt. progrowth tax reform lower rates on a broad base which all economist agree is desirable would be important to that effort. in the long run we need to get entitlement cost growth under control in a manner that strengthens and preserves our key entitlement programs but prevents them from bankrupting the rest of the government. simply put we're going to have too many people collecting too generous benefits. we should be trimming them at the top and slowing the increase through a variety of matters. i've calculating that the harm from allowing the projected debt to grow. it's not only unsustainable. it's dangerous. it would lead to a generation of
lost income for our children and grandchildren on a level of 20 to 30%. we need to get the g.d.p. heading down. i think there should be in addition to those two things, medium fiscal consolidation and tax reform. minimizing that reducing subsidies to the well off. budget reform, making programs more effective. jobs going vacant for lack of training. we have 46 job training programs in the federal government. one was added for green energy. it should be shut down. most of those programs don't even have metrix. we need to eliminate the bad ones, consolidate the hopeful ones, modernize and train people.
it will help people at lower cost. there are many examples of that throughout the government. i'd be happy to take questions on that. in terms of monetary policy, it need to be more predictable and permanent. i call it rules based, if it's not following a clear rule, it's working as if it is. anytime it deviates, there is an emergency reason and so on. you could eliminate the tax rules and new spending programs that leaves everybody uncertainty about whether they will be renewed that jerry rigs all the incentives in the economy. in addition education as well as job training reform, and i might add trade liberalization which i'm glad to see the president has begun to start about in some dimensions would be important compliments to this but it should be on consolidation on
the spending time as the economy recovers. research shows consolidations do not cause recessions have $5 spending cuts for every dollar of tax increase. an economically balanced consolidation is primarily on the spending side. it's not 50/50. i wish the committee good luck and progress and i look forward to working with you and hearing your questions. >> thank you. >> thank you. it's a great honor and i appreciate the invitation. i think the central question that have you raised here today fits in the tradition of the joint economic committee where they've had a long history of democrats and republicans working together, the house and the senate working together and i think there are a lot of
things that we can agree on not the least of which is our dress code today. we did not coordinate. but if the questioning gets difficult i'm going to try to look like i were him and direct the questions away from myself. the central question is why is the economy not growing faster after a deep recession? and i think there are three primary reasons for that but before i state those reasons i would like to make one factual observation which is this is not the weakest recovery in memory. it is not the weakest of the last two. the 2001 recovery was substantially slower than this one. what is different about this one is it is not v shaped in the way professor points out in his testimony. it was after the deep recessions of 1975 and 1982.
i think there are three reasons why that is. the first is this recession came from the popping of a bubble unlike the 1982 and 1975 recessions and popping bubbles are much more difficult to escape from the grips of than are the other. so in 1982 my dear friend paul voker rose the -- the interest rates rose to over 20% on mortgages. economic activity slowed dramatically as interest rates came down that pinned up demand came right back. that is not having a do a lot of structural transformation of what the economy is doing but going back to what you were doing before. there was a joke headline in the onion newspaper, serious nation demands new bubble to invest in to have prosperity. let's not reenact that
headline. it's clear as we look at the data as we highlighted in the report when i was serving as the chair that the expansion of the 2000's was dramatically outsized in contribution of housing construction and personal consuming spending as the key drivers of growth. it was way underweighted as compared to past recoveries and compared to other expansions around the world in business investment and export growth. we must shift the economy away -- we can't go back to the building of residential construction and personal consumption spending faster than income growth as the two drivers of growth. those were fueled by a bubble and they aren't coming back in the way they were then. so that has taken some time. what that means for the job market? i think it's not a secret the
performance of the job market is tied to how much faster growth is than productivity. productivity of our workers grows about 2% a year. anytime growth gets above 2%, you have to hire workers or add hours to meet that kind of demand. if the growth remains in the 2% or below the job market is going to remain stag informant. -- stagnant. the good news is that the forecast are that growth would get back up in the 2% or higher range in the immediate term. i fear that the impact of the sequester would cut .5% to 1% off the growth rate and would again put us back into the circumstance in which growth is not fast enough to shrink the unemployment rate. that instead of unemployment shrinking, it would be rising
again. the second factor that has made this not a v shape recovery, is we're overcoming the worst housing market in history. if you look at research housing and construction are the most cyclical component of the economy. they have a much outsized importance for the business cycle. the normal coming out of a recession is at least a third related to new construction. we got overbuilt in the bubble with 6 million vacant homes, construction fell close to nothing. it's quite understandable why the overall growth rate of the economy has not come back in the short run as rapidly as in past because we couldn't go back to getting anything from construction. the good news is that the long nightmare of housing in many if not most markets appears to have turned the corner.
so we may start to get some contribution from that. third, the evidence is that financial crisis and big d leveraging take a major toll on growth. the economic growth report of this year compares its experience in the labor market to experience of other countries that have had financial crisis and the u.s. appears to be doing a fire bit better than average for that circumstance. all of those are just to say it's not fast enough, but i think it is understandable why it wasn't v shaped. why it looks more like the 2001 recovery than the 1984 recovery. lastly, i would like to say two things i believe the data do not suggest are predominantly to explain why growth has not been faster. the first is i do not believe the data supports the view that regulation or policy changes over the last three years are
the predominant reason why growth has not been v shaped recovery. if you look at things like the accumulation of money on the balance sheet of corporations and a lack of willingness to invest, that pervades all the advanced economies of the world. that is happening in countries that did not pass a health plan, that have not had any changes of their regulatory regime, so anybody who is arguing that regulation is the driver has to explain why the pattern is consist ant cross these other countries. second, the way economist normally measure the impact of regulation on growth when they say for example that the 1977 clean air act affected manufacturing, they compare counties where it applies strictly to counties writ doesn't. they compare those industries and company that is are affected to those that are not by size, by sector, etc. if you do that now, there is
little evidence that those regulatory policies are the primary driver. the second factor that i believe the evidence does not suggest is the cause is the short run deficit. most of the short run deficit has been caused by the downturn, not caused the downturn and while i 100% agree and have for a long time been an advocate of a long term fiscal consolidation i think you need only look at the g.d.p. evidence in the united states in the fourth quarter or in europe where they are engaged in dramatic austerity to realize there is a tension between trying to cut too much in the immediate term and the growth rate. i think the normal channels by which fiscal contractions can be -- go through the interest rate that you satisfy investors and make them more confident in the plan so the interest rate come
down. we are facing epically low interest rates. it is hard for me to understand mechanism which fiscal contractions would be in this environment. i believe there are many things we can agree on whether on long run fiscal consolidation, on investing and training invasion as the keys to growth. i hope we do not something that would be a mistake in the short run on a purpose that is something other than re-establishing a growth strategy. thank you. >> thank you both for the testimony. doctor, as we look at the growth gap, ways to close it and more importantly solutions, you mentioned recently the generational damage by this high spending to g.d.p. ratio and about the need for fiscal consolidation.
economists generally believe that federal spending should be capped and controlled relative to the size of the economy. the challenge is how best to do that. i'd like your advice. we've developed over the past year and a half legislation called the map act that address the spending caps. the difference from past efforts is we used two slightly different we think smarter metrix to do that. one is a non-enter spending. -- noninterest spending. that which is controlled by congress, both discretionary entitlement type spending. the goal clearly there is to be able to reduce what we can reduce without adding pressure on us to push the fed to keep interest rates political low. the second, the denominator is the second, the denominator is potential g.d.p. rather than estimated rolling average. it's not as cyclical. congresses can'